recording of his beating by los angeles police officers in march 1991. he talks about the riots in l.a. following the acquittal of four of the officers in the case. his own legal problems and alcohol addiction. tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. eastern, booktv will have a live webcast from harlem, new york. you can see it at booktv.org. >> now, a group of former marine corps officers say reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil is one of the top national security issues. they spoke at a forum about alternative energy fuel sources and the future of the electric car. you'll hear from two former marine corps commandants along with the president and ceo of fedex, fred dick smith, and the former vice chairman of general motors, bob lutz. this 90-minute event was hosted by the hudson institute.

>> i'm ken weinstein, president and ceo of hudson institute. on behalf of hudson institute and our partner for today's event, securing america's future energy, i'd like to welcome everyone to the betsy and walter stern conference center here at hudson. let me extend a special welcome to our c-span viewing audience and those watching online at hudson.org. before we get under way, let me make the standard announcement to ask everyone to kindly turn down the ringers on your cell phones. let me say a few words about hudson institute. hudson institute is a future-oriented, market-oriented international policy research organization that was founded in 1961 by the late herman khan. central to our research agenda since our founding has been work on natural resources, especially oil and the role resources play in the global economy. khan's view and our view today is that inthough vegas and

human -- innovation and human ingenuity can overcome resource scarcity and provide alternatives that enable us to be prudently optimistic about the future of america and the world. we are co-hosting today's event with securing america's future energy. s.a.f.e. was lawned as an action-oriented, nonpartisan organization dedicated to reducing u.s. oil dependence by educating policymakers and advocating for comprehensive energy reform. s.a.f.e. has done extraordinary work in getting the u.s. energy issue on the public agenda thanks in if part to its dynamic and strategic founder, president, ceo robbie diamond, who is with us today. in 2006 under robbie's leadership, s.a.f.e. formed the energy security leadership council, a group of business and military leaders committed to reducing u.s. oil dependence. the very distinguished leaders on the energy security leadership council includes four men who are with us today, all

are former marines who care deeply about our country and its future, both our national security and our energy security. and i'll introduce them by the order in which they're seated. frederick w. smith, chairman, president and ceo of the fedex corporation and co-chairman of securing america's future energy security leadership council. fedex, pred smith needs no introduction in washington, let me just say, neither does fedex, but let me do that nonetheless. be fedex is a $32 billion country serving 220 countries with 260,000 employees, 677 aircraft, 70,000 vehicles to handle more than six million shipments per business day. fred smith is known as a proponent of free markets and free trade and serves on the board of our sister organization, i can say the cato institute, among many other organizations. bob lutz, the former vice chairman of the general motors

corporation. robert lutz's 47-year career in the auto industry made him a legend largely focused on product development that included senior leadership positions at general motors, ford, chrysler and bmw and culminating in being the vice chairman of general motors. general james conway, retired, the 34th commandant of the united states marine corps. general conway served as a member of the joint chiefs in the culmination of a 40-year, extraordinarily-distinguished career in active duty. the marine corps grew to over 250,000 active, reserve and civilian personnel which he was responsible for organizing, equipping and training. and he was especially known for bringing in next generation weapons systems into the marine corps. lastly, general p.x. kelly, the 28th commandant of the u.s. marine corp.. and general kelly's extraordinarily distinguished

37-year military career which ended in 1987, he commanded marine corps organizations at every echelon from platoon through division, was the youngest marine ever to be made a general and also served as a member of the joint chiefs. gentlemen, all four of you have been leaders all your lives, and we're particularly horned -- honored that you're continuing to be leaders. following their opening remarks which will come in the form of responses to questions, these four individuals, distinguished individuals have graciously agreed to take questions from the audience. as moderator, i will begin by asking some questions of our panelists before turning it over to our conference center audience here for questions and answers. you can also submit questions via twitter. please send them to us @hudson institute. one last note, i should note lastly how pleased we are to be working with s.a.f.e., s.a.f.e. and hudson are different os, but

i think it is significant we are working together to promote dialogue on energy and public policy. s.a.f.e. is a policy organization dedicated to u.s. energy security and has produced a number of constructive proposals to address those challenges. and you can learn more about s. a. f.e. at secure energy.org. hudson institute is a future and market-oriented policy research organization with some diversity of viewpoints on energy policy to put it in the least. though our scholars are unanimous in supporting various forms of deregulation to promote further energy exploration, hudson does not take institutional positions, and our scholars' views differ in numerous ways. from sport on a tax on imported oil to a belief that a significant number of the economic externalities associated with oil are already captured by the current gas tax, and chris sands looks at industrial policy in the auto industry and why it has not yet solved our energy problems sustainably. new papers on energy by irwin

and lee lane are available, and chris' paper is forthcoming. let me say that by way of introduction, and let me turn it, first, now over to fred smith. this is a very distinguished group of individuals we have up here, all of whom have come together to talk about improving our nation's energy security. fred, how would you say our nation's energy is insecure today? >> well, ken, first, let me update a couple numbers there. fedex, i think we sent you a bad earlier bio. fedex is about a $43 billion company that operates about 95,000 trucks, and the reason i emphasize the number of vehicles that we operate and, of course, your figure on the airplanes are pretty close, but what's happened is they've gotten bigger over time. it's the biggest wide-body fleet in the world. we came to this issue a long

time ago. when fedex was first beginning operations in 1973, in short order we were faced with the first arab oil embargo. in the fall of 1973. where in response to u.s. actions in the middle east to support israel, oil was withheld from the market, and the united states had begun to be a significant importer of oil. and the goth had to aloe -- and the government had to allocate oil to individual use withers. so we were almost killed in our cradle by the first modern oil crisis. for 40 years we've watched it, and the significance over this period of time is that every single major economic contraction or recession in the united states -- the united

states has experienced including the subprime meltdown was either coincident with or precipitated by a significant runup in fuel prices. beginning in the 21st century, however, the landscape changed as a result of the united states imports of its petroleum needs reaching almost 60% at the zenith, and, um, the emergence of china and india as increasing users of petroleum as they had large percentages of their population moving into the middle class and wanting to have the same lifestyle that we did. so it has become over the last several years after nuclear proliferation and the weapons of mass destruction issue the large single national security

security and national economic risk that the united states faces. the energy security leadership council, um, is an organization as you noted that's composed of four-star generals and admirals and ceos of companies like fedex that use a great deal of energy. we use over a billion, 500 million gallons a year to put that in perspective. and we felt that the united states did not have a strategic policy regarding energy and that the failure to have a strategic policy could lead the united states into a very significant con front teation. confrontation. and we came up with five recommendations which i'll recount and then turn the floor back over to you to set the

stage as to what the united states should do to reduce its dependence on imported petroleum, for which we paid last year $320 some odd billion representing 58% of the u.s. balance of payments deficit. and many of those dollars, of course, went to countries which wish us ill, whose values are not the same as the united states, but who control the oil markets through a cartel. our recommendations transcend political labels. number one, it was to maximize united states oil and be gas production in whatever manner feasible. number two, was to diversify transportation powered by electrifying as rapidly as

possible short haul and light duty transportation coincident with the vast improvements in lithium battery technology. three, to utilize natural gas as a power supply for heavy-duty, over the-the-road and centrally-fueled vehicles. four, to reinstitute fuel efficiency standards for automobiles which was done in 2007 under the bush administration and, last, continue biofuel research in an attempt to come up with cost effective, scaleable biofuels. so that sets the stage, i think, for the recommendations of the elc that you may want to discuss. >> before we get to the recommendations, let me -- let's go back to -- for a moment to the national security issue, and

then we'll turn back to the recommendations. let me ask general conway about how he would characterize the national security implications of our dependence on oil, in particular the military's role in protecting vulnerable global oil supplies. >> ken, let me answer your question by giving you just a brief history of our evolution to dependence on foreign oil. in 1936, shortly before world war ii, the united states produced 99% of its oil requirement. by 1986 when i was a young major and visited the middle east for the first time with one of our chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, we went aboard the command ship. at that point the commander in the middle east was a navy two-star, and he and his entire staff were embarked aboard the uss lasalle. at that point our requirement for foreign oil was about 27%. today as fred mentioned, it's somewhere between 50 and 60%. and it's that impact on our

nation and particularly our nation's economy, our nation's decision making that puts us at risk. the problem is our enemies recognize that, and it is the strategy, the philosophy of extremists who would, who have attacked our country and want to continue to do so, they believe that they cannot beat us in the field but can bring us to our knees through manipulation, control, destruction, having impact on oil supply and its cost to this nation. to the degree that they can in terms bankrupt us that would then make us unable to react. i'm not just talking about us, i'm talking about western europe as well. so it is that potential for mipg that causes us concern from a national security perspective. and i can assure you because i've been there, when the joint chiefs of staff sit around the table and talk about various

options in any scenario these days that involves the middle east, high on the considerations as you look at courses of action are impact on our national economic picture. that has never been the case before. previously, that's always been sort of a side concern that we would have as military men, someone else will worry about those factors, but today it is front and center. now, you should, however, i guess -- never cite a problem without offering a recommendation, and in addition to the things fred has talked about, i think as americans we've got to demand that our country, our national legislators come together with a national energy strategy. policies in my mind live as long as the policymakers. i think there has to be a uniform strategy that all sides of the issue can agree upon necessarily through compromise, but we can all agree upon it will take us for the next 10 or 20 years where we need to go.

it's got to transcend administrations. and until that happens, i think we'll continue to bounce about with a few policies, a few well-intentioned types of efforts, but we won't get to where we need to be in this transition period. >> let me ask you, if we do get to the energy security that is so desired, can we really abandon the mission that we have in term of protecting global commerce? >> no, i don't think we'll ever do that. we are a global power. we will continue, i think, as the primary amongst all of the global powers by protecting the sea lanes and international commerce. it's in our best interest, in the best interests of the world to do that. it's a responsibility that we have evolved to over time really, i guess, since the end of world war ii. i don't think that's going to change much, and i don't think our countrymen want it to change much. i know certainly american business is very comfortable with us being there. it also brings aboard a lot of other values, i think, that come with it, not least of which is

just the presence and the engagement with our friends and allies across the globe. so the united states military will always be a global military, and i think it's a price we're going to have to pay for that kind of influence. >> general kelly, let me ask you -- general kelley, let me ask you, you saw something, clearly, decades ago that others didn't. would you care to say a few words about the creation of centcom? >> would you say that again? >> say a few words about the creation of centcom and your role in it. >> well, that's a good question. [laughter] as some of you may recall, when we were considering centcom, centcom actually started when harold brown realized we did not have a worldwide force, a force that could go globally when, as the crises developed in a worldwide basis. it soon narrowed down because of circumstances going on in the world today. it soon narrowed down to the middle east.

but meanwhile, um, in searching for a commander of the central command, after a lot of due diligence in the pentagon and one story which i do like to tell that when my name was mentioned to the chairman of the joint chiefs, he didn't know me, and he said he'd like to meet me. so i went over on a sunday morning, and his secretary was there in the his office, and i told her to see the chairman, and she said, well, he's over in the white house. and i said, well, how long is he going to be there? and she said, well, i really don't know. why, do you have a problem? i said, well, quite frankly, i do. and she said, would you mind telling me what it is? i said, no, not really, but i'll tell you, i've promised my granddaughter i was going to take her to see snow white and the seven dwarves at 2:00, and, by god, i'm going to see snow

white and the seven dwarves at 2:00. so the chairman did find out that and thought that was rather humorous. but going back a bit, i had a tour for a year with the royal marines, i was a commanding officer. actually, i think, probably historically i was the full commander of the royal marine company in a commando unit that was stationed in aden. i think some of you probably know where aden is, but aden is a center or was a center element for middle east oil. and the facility in aden was actually a royal marine facility, and i was the assistant operations officer of four or five commando royal marines, and our job was to protect the oil that was in aden which was considerable, and also one of the main arteries so to speak of the u.s., or rather the royal navy operations in the

middle east. but going back to central command, that started out really as a worldwide command, and the first thing that struck me was the fact that there was no central facility, no focus on the middle east. it was worldwide, but it wasn't in the middle east. and that is at a time when the middle east was really starting to flare up as you may recall. so with that said, when we started to do our planning for the middle east, we realized that we're talking about an 8,000-mile zone between u.s. facilities and the middle east, 8,000 miles where the airplanes had to go and ships had to go, and this was a tremendous demand on oil. because that was the only option that we, in fact, did have. when we started to do our planning then, we realized that this was a bigger problem than

just having a small, little force for the middle east. so that's when we started the wheels in motion for the european command rather than central command, and that's what's sort of the history of central command was the fact that we had no unified commander actually in response, that was responsible for the middle east. in fact, the people who were in the middle east who were reporting through, to the senior commander in europe which was a totally unworkable situation. is so that was the birth from central command, which as you know today is the command in the middle east and responsible fully for the middle east. >> thank you, general. we're going to shift gears now, and can i'm going to turn it over to ask questions of bob lutz to focus on additional electrification which the president noted as one of the five policy aims of the energy

leadership council. let me ask you, will you tell us a little bit about why and you and gm chose to build the volt? and what the future looks like for cars like these. obviously, the vehicle in particular has received a significant amount of criticism particularly from political conservatives. as we noted earlier today in our discussion. and many say the government shouldn't be involved in this type of technology, many question the readiness of this new technology. what's your message to skeptics like this? >> well, let me start with the popular misconceptions about the chevrolet volt. those of you who listen to conservative radio or watch fox news or listen to reilly or neil cavuto will believe that the chevrolet volt catches fire a lot. um, it consumed $53 billion for only 6,000 built, was a product

of the obama administration when, in fact, it is none of those things. chevrolet volt was conceived largely by a very self-serving comment, but largely by me because it was very promising technology which would link all of the advantages of the purely electric vehicle which is 40 miles with no fuel consumption whatsoever with the ultimate range of a conventional car beyond the depletion range of the battery and small internal combustion engine would provide electricity to the battery for about another 300 miles. so it seemed like the ideal solution where for most daily trips you could be electrical, but if you have to go long distances, you're not limited by range. we had a concept car at the detroit auto show in january 2007, and history will show that obama was elected in november of

2008. so, in fact, an interesting fact, in the post-subprime meltdown and $4.50 gasoline environment in the latter part of 2008 when the american automobile market went from a going rate of 16 million a year down to 8 million a year and general motors and chrysler both had to go chapper 11 -- chapterr 11, at that point when the obama task force came in for the restructuring in early 2009, the obama task force, in fact, recommended that the chevy volt program be dropped as somewhat too capital intensive, not a good enough payback on invested capital, and it was a marginal business proposition. and it was, in fact, those of us at general motors who argued,

no, e we should not drop this vehicle, this vehicle is the future, this is the vehicle that can technologically leapfrog the toyota prius and paves the way to the future. and those of you who are interested in this stuff, we are probably a couple of months away from bmw announcing the i3 which is volt technology. they actually hired most of the volt team to do it. audi is going to introduce the audi etronic, again, a car with an electric range supplemented by battery. volvo's going to have one, mercedes is going to have one. in other words, this technology is going to become generalized. now, it is, to me, the unfortunate thing is that because electric cars are very closely associated with the left-wing environmental/green movement and to combat global

warming and reduce co2, the idea of vehicle electrification triggers this visceral reaction on the part of conservatives which is if electric, it must be a product of the democratic, left-wing, environmental political machine, therefore, we hate it. this is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction because what the volt and other vehicles like it are about is -- and this is the first generation, we're in a period of transition -- but what these vehicles are about is shifting portions of the american mobile sector on to a more efficient and domestically-produced power source. and in conjunction with a lot of other measures and as fred smith likes to say, we're for everything. we're for more drilling, we're

for use of coal, we're for use of, much more use of natural gas, we're for all of the things that can be, that are domestic resource and can reduce america's dependence on imported petroleum products. one of those components is the electrification of the automobile which makes all kinds of sense and will make increasing sense in another five years when the cost of batteries and the technology will come way down. so it's part of, it's an important part of the overall mosaic of energy efficiency and, by the way, reduced cost of driving because driving an electric vehicle costs a fraction of petroleum-powered vehicle. so my plea to the right, and i have written e-mails to rush limbaugh who likes to describe me as my good friend bob lutz, although i never get an e-mail response from him.

bill o'reilly, who wanted me on the show, and i couldn't go because i'm a cnbc contributor. but all of these people i fend frustrate me in the unwillingness to accept that electrification of the mobile ec to have is a -- sector is a good thing to do and in the national interest whether you're a conservative or a liberal. one final thing on the volt. many of you have heard that they catch fire. my intellectual idol, charles krauthammer, whom we will be seeing later has described the chevy volt as the flammable chevrolet volt. [laughter] thus perpetuating the fiction that electric vehicles in general and the chevy volt catch fire. in fact, one chevrolet volt caught fire in a government

crash test which totally destroyed the vehicle. the vehicle caught fire three weeks after the test, and i would say three weeks allows adequate time for survivors to exit the vehicle. [laughter] no chevrolet volt has ever caught fire. but as we speak, there are three vehicle brands, that where nhtsa has issued recall notices or they're under investigation where, meanwhile, the customers are asked to park the vehicles outside, do not place vehicle in your garage, do not place vehicle close to other vehicles. one is german, one is a jeep, and one, i'm sad to say, is a chevrolet, but they're all internal combustion, conventional cars one of which catches fire in the united states every 120 seconds, 275,000 a year.

so, you know, where's the outrage? no electric vehicle has ever caught fire, and yet the political right is constantly talking about the program in about, overheating, fire hazard and so forth of the electric vehicle. folk, it's a pure fiction. please, get et out of your heads -- get it out of your heads. thank you. >> thank you. we turn it now back to fred smith. in outlining the energy leadership council's policy agenda, you're known as a champion of deregulation of free markets, mentioned you're a trustee of the cato institute. what government actions do you think are justified in this area, and how do you justify the costs of them? >> i'm an erstwhile member of the cato board, but you're exactly right, i'm a conservative, and i definitely believe in the main and free market solutions. the problem with the oil market is that it's not a free market.

.. that's not classical economics. they're not maximizing their economic return. in fact, there is an intellectual fight between the saudi a rabians who want

to keep the price of oil at a level which doesn't incent people to develop alternatives but maximizes their income. they need about 94, $95 a barrel in saud rabe yaw to make their -- saudi arabia, to make their social payments today. that is not my figures. the saudi government's figures. the iranians would like to run the price up as high as possible in order to, to hurt the west, particularly during this period of time when the west has put sanctions on the iranian regime. in 2001, the average american family spent about $1700 on fuel. last year that figure was about $4,000 per family. a huge fight took place as we all watched in congress

over whether the payroll tax would be reduced in 2011 and then continued into 2012. the value of that reduction to the american public in 2011 was about $110 billion. the cost of the american public of the increased price in fuel in 2011 was about $110. so the increased price of fuel served as a tax that took the increased economic activity, our increase in gnp, and put at least half of it into the hands of people who supply us, supply us oil. the geopolitical issues surrounding oil have been going on a long time. we talked earlier in the day but people forget it.

that cause between japan and united states was when we embargoed their oil supplies of indonesia. the famous battle of the germ man versus the russians in stalingrad was about oil. the germans had gone to stalingrad to interdict the oil coming up the volga river supplying stalin's armeys. the biggest air raid the united states ever conducted up to that time and certainly the most heroic was to try to knock out the oil refineries. the 1990 war in iraq was clearly about oil. osama bin laden declared war on the united states. nobody paid much attention to it, when he did it and i think 1998 because of the presence of american troops in saudi arabia. that left there after the first gulf war. so the united states has gotten ourselves into a position where importing now

a little bit less thank goodness because of these improved technologies we are still dependent for half of our oil from foreign sources. so the only way that we can prevent the united states from being taxed if you will every time we have any type of economic growth by increased oil prices that are set by a cartel that would not be legally possible if it were operating inside the united states is to diversify our fuel supply along the lines that we mentioned. so even though i'm a conservative and i support free market principles, this is not a free market problem. it is a military and national security problem and it should be looked at in the same vein as if we're buying another couple squadrons of f-35s or another aircraft carrier.

and the perfundtory that bob talked about, the lithium eye on technology, which is on a very good clip to become self-sustaining on its own it is in our best interest as a nation to do all of those things that the energy security leadership council has recommended lest we get into another military conflagration over this issue. >> let me ask you a follow-up in this area about alternative, new and alternative energy sources or new energy sources. given the recent boom in domestic oil and natural gas production, do you, is it, is it simply not possible for natural gas to meet the drilling needs that we see to improve our energy security sufficiently? i mean do you think the, why is electrification so critical? >> it is not just electrification. you remember i mentioned five things. one, maximize u.s. oil and

gas production in every possible way. in alaska, off both coasts, in the gulf, on federal lands. we need to maximize indigenous u.s. oil and gas production. then i also mentioned electrification for light duty personal and come meshal vehicles. the use of natural gas for heavy over the rove and centrally fuel vehicles. renewed fuel efficiency standards, and continued research on biofuels. so you need to do all five of those. in the case of natural gas and electrification, they both get at the fundamental problem about our oil use and our consumption of oil. by the way, president ice senl hour -- eisenhower when he was in office and he knew a thing or two about national security said it would be a national security emergency if we imported over 15% of our oil needs.

at one point i mentioned a few years ago we were up to 60%. here's the issue in a nutshell. oil is basically transportation. of the slightly now under 19 million barrels a day that we burn, per day, about 20% of the world demand, 70% of it is transportation. of the 70% of oil used in transportation you have to recognize that somewhere around 97% is powered by oil. the light duty sector is by far the biggest single user of petroleum. it represents somewhere around 10 million of our daily consumption. the heavy, over the road vehicles represent somewhere around three million barrels a day. so let me give you some gee

whiz numbers here. we have 250 million light duty vehicles in the united states. that's personal automobiles and the small you can interests, coca-cola, verizon, at&t, might use. if you could wave a magic wand and convert all of them to battery-powered and recharge those every night, there is enough energy capability, productive capability in our existing power plant system, to refuel everyone of those vehicles every night. and they can be done in an off-peak time. there are lots of details here that transformers in the right neighborhood and having 220 like you have for your washing machine in the right place to power your vehicle but the trajectory that bob lutz nose a lot

better than i do of the lithium-ion batteries will give us next 15 years alongwith fuel efficiency standards to take that 10 million barrels a day we use for light duty trucks and personal ubl automobiles and cut it at least in half to 5 million barrels a day or less. of the 4 million barrels a day used in the heavy truck sector, conversion of a great percentage of it over to natural gas which is now possible because the engine manufacturers are beginning to come out with 12 liter and 15 liter engines which are economical, we could potentially cut that in half and the, the equivalent price of a diesel gallon represented by liquid natural gas today is almost $2 per gallon less. so it isn't just the one thing. it's doing all of these in order to eliminate the

national security and economic risks the country faces. i will just close with this. we're sitting reading headlines every day about the deliberations of the israelis and our government and europeans about what to do with the iranian nuclear situation. if the strait of hormuz was shut through which 17 million barrels of oil go per day, i don't think they can do it based on what i understand but let's say somehow that happens. there is no question that the price of oil in the united states would go well above $200 per barrel. the price of fuel at the pump would go from 3.75, $4 a gallon, to 7, $7.50 per gallon. the 7% of our gdp that we now spend for petroleum would shoot up to 10 or 12%. i can assure you that we would have an economic contraction that would make the one that we just gone through seem like a twin

sister, twin brother. so we have to deal with this issue as a strategic military and geopolitical issue that can not be solved in the short-run, just by domestic production. it has to be a part of the equation and we support all of it but it is going to take us doing all of those things and not be on the right or the left about this but to be an american about the problem. >> let me turn it to general conley for a second to comment about your remarks about iran and the future of u.s. energy security. >> well, fred's exactly right and the figures i think should scare us all. that 17 million a day constitutes 20% of the world's oil supply and, you know, i honestly think that the situation with iran is the wolf closest to our sled. happily they're in negotiations taking place right now. i'm pessimistic about their

outcome frankly because i think you will see delay and probably very little tangible result. you know iran has said they want to develop a nuclear capability so that they have sustained energy overtime. that is like saying eskimos need freezers because they have got more energy right now than they know what to do with and will have for generations to come. we have said that position is unacceptable, for them to have nuclear weapons because terrorism is a recognized element of national power from an iranian perspective and 33 other nations of the world agree with us on that. so i'm afraid we're headed towards confrontation. and i think there is a window of time here for negotiation but it's a window that's closing rapidly because the israelis, we see the issue as a problem. the israelis see it as existential to the survival of their nation and, you know, the unfortunate part is if they do attack it will be with american-made planes

dropping american-made bombs and they will defend israel with american-made patriot systems. whether or not we attack we'll be perceived as a vital part of all that takes place. in many ways we don't need another war but we could be pulled into one because of actions of another nation. options available to us in the near term? limited attack will delay but it will not stop an iriranian program and the process we poke the tiger. a full-scale attack is, regime change i guess is always an option but iran is long way from anywhere. there are not any beaches close to tehran. it would be long. it would be bloody. tens of thousands of iranians would die and thousands of other americans i suspect would join us would also find that a very difficult task. you know, there is a third option i guess and that is change from within but i think the window for that opened and closed a couple

years ago and we did not take advantage potentially of unrest inside the country that might have helped us to offset the problem. if, if iran, let me put it like this. if i were an iranian general giving my best military advice to the ayatollah or ahmadinejad, it would be hey, don't overtly close the straits because the american navy will kill us but if we simply have a mine adrift out there every once in a while, undisclosed attack, that sinks a tanker or two in that gulf which is in our backyard, the insurance companies will do the rest and we will start this effort of bringing the west to its knees through gas prices that our country probably in excess of $10 a gallon. there are a lot of tools that they have that, again, can be used to manipulate us in ways that it's pretty, it's pretty challenging just to think about. >> well on that ominous note

let's open it to the audience for questions. we'll begin with my colleague irwin stelzer, director of economic studies here at hudson. >> do i need a mic? >> yes. >> please speak into the microphone and identify yourself. and everyone else. >> i'm irwin stelzer. is that working? i've been jousting with conservatives of this question of security and not just having reaction to the fact that environmentalists want to get us off fossil fuels. i might say, mr. lutz, that i thought you were as unkindly as treated by cnbc this morning as anything that fox might have arranged. so you apparently do have a problem selling this to conservatives.

and i agree. here's the problem. and perhaps you can help us. what fred is suggesting is that somebody is going to have to pick a winning technology and somehow make it happen. that because oil markets are distorted we can't rely only on the private sector to do that. >> right. >> so now we're into government subsidizing what it perceives to be winners. that's a conservative difficulty. and second, when we call for a policy, that smacks of planning. what i heard today is this problem solveable, since this a security problem, by having general conway and general kelly suggest that the funding for these technologies come out of the military budget?

>> do you know who you're directing the question to? >> first of all, i'm sorry, fred, i wonder how you get over this question of the picking of winners and second of all i wonder if our military friends would accept the burden of funding the perceived winners from the military budget since this is a security problem and markets can't seem to handle it? >> well, first of all, everybody in this room that has a, on your person at the moment a cell phone, raise your hand? is there anybody, are you telling me that in this large group of people back there that don't have cell phones? everybody that owns one, raise your hand? everybody in the roo, isn't it? if you don't you're one of a teen nye minority. that, that issue has been decided. every cell phone, regardless of whether you have an

android or iphone or whatever the case may be is powered by lithium-ion battery. nobody is arguing today whether lead acid batteries, or whatever the case may be are going to be a source of power. that issue has been decided. it is much more akin to the situation in the early days of aviation when the united states realized that there was a high likelihood that these tiny, little airplanes that had been so important in world war i were likely, because of technology, to become self-sustaining in a commercial way themselves. and so what the government did is to try to help that technology cross the chasm by offering airmail contracts to incent the manufacture you ares to build new productive

airplanes and eventually douglas did that with the dc-3 and famous c-47 variant of it which was a big part of our victory in world war ii. so what the government needs to do today is in my opinion not try to pick winners and losers among general motors or ford or whatever the case may be but to provide the incentive for the private sector to build the vehicles and help drive the cost of the, of the battery down and increase the range so that for light duty vehicles there is an alternative to fossil fuels. it is not going to replace it. plenty of internal combustion engines will be built for a long time. so i think that's different than picking a winner and, it's certainly not the same as the government putting

money into solyndra or putting money into solar or what have you. that is more of an environmental issue. we have lots of power-generating fuels in the united states. we have coal. we have natural gas. we have geothermal. we have certainly solar and wind but they're a tiny fraction. we have nuclear and so forth. so we don't have to pick a winner or a loser of the power sector which is the primary propup shun capability. all we have to do is provide the incentive to try to drive this technology into scale production which i think, and bob lutz here has forgotten more about this than i will ever know, burr i think the trajectory of the battery density and the price and range of the vehicles in a few years are

going to be cost competitive on their own. but there is no competitive technology that can fight the lithium-ion we all powered with our adoption of the cellular telephony. >> before we movement. technology and battery sector and where it is going. >> well, anyone who has worked with electric vehicles or worked in the battery industry and knows that there are significant, significant, breakthroughs in the wings both at national labs level, university level and a lot of private startup companies and the work is concentrated to some extent on the cath they hads -- cathode, improve the efficiency of the cathode you could double the efficiency of the

lithium-ion. there is something called lithium-sulfur which is about four years away and will improve energy density by a factor of five. so what today is a 40 mile range battery in a volt become as 200 mile battery. a little further on the horizon is lithium-air which today demonstrates already 10 times the energy density of the day's lithium-eye on. there is one tiny problem. nobody figured how to recharge it yet. it is a pry parry battery. it works once and is disposed. but i think the recharging thing will be settled. some historic figures when we started working on the chevy volt, lithium ion automotive use was quoted $2,000 per kilowatt-hour. through negotiation with various battery

manufacturers at the time we got it down to 1,000 per kilowatt-hour and then 950 per kilowatt-hour. meanwhile it has come far down on the cost curve, last i checked, it probably gone down somewhere since then and $350 per kilowatt-hour and still dropping. to the point fred made it will soon be self-sustaining i am a board member of a company which takes general motor-produced pickup trucks and full-size vans minus the engine and transmission, installs lithium ion batter i ares and electric mother and small fuel efficient v-6 engine. works like a chevy volt. 40 miles electric and rest of the time you're on, you're on the piston engine replenishing the battery. these things today, there is heavy, heavy demand from fleets including federal express because the combined

monthly amortization of the vehicle which admittedly is more expensive than a conventional pickup, plus the fuel cost, monthly fuel cost, the sum of those two is less than the monthly amortization plus the fuel cost of a conventional pickup and that is at $3.50 a gallon. at $4, $4 plus of course the equation tips even farther. so here is a whole vehicle category that already is not dependent on government incentives. and in fact, from a purely private enterprise which one's the best solution for me, already pays off for, for fleet use. so i think we can all be very optimistic that, in a very brief time government tax credits will no longer be necessary for the support of electricfied vehicles, by the way one more little

reminder as a get a chance to present, you know, bill o'reilly has a larger audience than i do but obama gets blamed for the $7500 federal tax credit for buying an electric vehicle. that policy, that tax credit in fact was created under george w. bush, just, to set the record straight. >> i'm not sure that tax credit would have many fans here otherwise. let me turn it back to general kelly and ask about, or turn it back to irwin's question about the military assuming some of the costs. >> can i stand up? >> absolutely. >> probably notice when i walked in i have a little problem walking. that's, when i saw the surgeon at bethesda, he said what have you been doing? that back is the worst back i've ever seen?

well you don't jump out of airplanes a couple hundred times and come back clean so. [laughter] i'm not asking your opinion. what can you do to fix it? and he said, well he said, when my team sees that back they're going to think it's unfixable but with that said, let me sit down, and then i will answer your question. with that said, i said i will make a deal with you. i'll make a deal with you. i will let you operate if, if you can do it up on the 8th floor which is the orthopedic ward for the young kids coming home as opposed to the suites second floor for all the admiral as and generals who like bip suites. he said, yes he could do that. it was one the best decisions i think i made in my 37 years as a marine to see and be with these young kids. one night i woke up with great pain and i looked over

and there is a young marine standing there, i said what are you doing here? he said i'm guarding you. i said, from what? and i looked over and here he is standing there guarding me on one leg. and i mention that story because only i think every time i meet a wonderful group like this i want you to know there are young kids out there doing a great job for this country in everywhere. [applause] but, to answer your question, the answer generally speaking and there always will be exceptions is no. the budget now is so low that if you start taking out anymore, anymore for either people or equipment, you're going to degrade the combat capabilities of the united states of america. and that is my opinion but i think it is supported by facts. as a young two-star i was

sent by the marine corps to the european command and i gave 52 presentations on the capabilities of the marine corps operating in that theater of operations and one of the things i was more focused on than anything, i know marines can fight, is the question of how you get there. and what i saw was, we were having a very difficult time in determining how we were going to get there. as an example i was up in buddha in norway and a great big norwegian air force general got very annoyed with some of the things i was saying. he came over and punched me in the chest and he said, you can't come to my country and tell me how i'm going to fight my war. well his boss, who was a 3-star, told him to sit down and he reminded him, say

anytime you got to have something to fight with before you can fight. i thought that was a great answer for somebody who really getting very antagonistic. the point of that story is, the following year i went to the pacific area and gave about 50 presentations on the marine corps and its capability. and from that, we built a building block of very, i think, unique and historic capabilities. number one was the essential during the gulf war and that was the maritime prepositioning ships. those ships could be prelocated offshore or in close proximity to the target area. they're completely loaded with supplies and equipment for 30 days. so your transit time is cut down to practically nothing. and we also, we, built 50 more c-5 airplanes.

we rewinged all of the 141s. we did a lot of things to improve our capability to get there. but now then the issue was, once you get there how are you going to fight? and i think the marine corps during that period of time and now has made such, 100% improvement. i don't know how many of you have ever known some of our commandants but we have one who was a in habit of being particularly nasty if you weren't telling him what you wanted to hear. he wasn't one of -- [inaudible] and, in a meeting one day i told him what he didn't want to hear. and he got very antagonistic because i did and what i said essentially, if you do that, we have to sell off 10,000 marines just to pay

that bill. and he didn't believe me until we proved to him. and so with that then we had to borrow money from peter to pay paul. and from what i am reading now that is coming out of the pentagon is they are really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel. and so the answer to what your question is, yes, there are probably some items that you can get along without for a period of time. on the other hand i don't think there are many. if this great country of ours is going to be a global force and have capabilities that are global then we've got to pay the penalty that it costs us and don't expect it to come from the young troops who can hardly afford it. i heard a story once and i'm not invading your territory, but when you were commander

in the gulf war, not gulf war, the iraqi war, your column of trucks was some 60 miles long? >> total. street trucks, a column 60 miles long. imagine refueling capability and i told again, jim, if i'm stepping on your toes, because we had in-flight refuelers and we're the only service that does, we could land those on the, roads and off-load the fuel into our containers at the unit level and that's what we did. so, of all of the services, let me be very candid about this, of all the services, i think we are probably the most care and loving care for the dollar bill and what it costs to go to war. there are no flourishes,

nothing that you can say, something you shouldn't have, and so the point is, the answer to the question i would be very, very doubtful unless we got specific to see if there are some things you think might be a tradeoff but i would doubt it very seriously. >> let me turn to fred smith. >> first of all let me put this into perspective. i'm fully in favor of a strong military. i believe in the axiom based on my own military service, if you need a platoon, send a battalion, if you need a battalion send a regment. anybody that has been in the military understands that. you want to deal with overwhelming force and we're fielding the best military in the history of the world but the energy security leadership council's recommendation and its offshoot, the electrification coalition that worked on this issue, correct me if i'm wrong about this, robbie, the

incentives which were recommended, total over a 10-year period about $15 billion. is that close? over 10 years. and, and it is a tiny fraction of the money we spend on the military which is $550 billion a year or something like that. that couldn't count the cost of combat operations. this country has spent in iraq, in afghanistan, well north of a trillion dollars. a prominent conservative mentioned to me this morning, well, the original afghanistan war wasn't really about oil. that's incorrect. as i said earlier osama bin laden declared war on the united states in 1998 because our troops were in saudi arabia and our troops were in saudi arabia because of the gulf war i, and

president george herbert walker bush, said as plain could be, the war was about oil. alan greenspan has repeated in his book. president nixon thought about invading saudi arabia after the first arab oil embargo. so this is, you're talking about $15 billion over 10 years to try to incent movement towards electrification. we at fedex have also supported either vehicle mileage taxes or an increase in the fuel tax in order to fund the appropriate infrastructure in this country. we won't raise the tax. our infrastructure is going to the devil. the cost of congestion, i don't have to tell anybody that lives in the washington, d.c. area about this, we're being penny-wise and pound foolish. you're not talking about a whole say cavitation by

providing incentives that we recommended and think can be funded in many ways but they need to be looked at as part of the overall strategic issues that confront the united states. not a free market issue or picking winners and losers but in the overall context. >> let me turn it over to another question from the audience. alfred moses microphone up here >> mr. smith, you didn't mention it your company is one of the most users of efficient fuels. you're a leader in the industry. to take your five points, oil production, can embark on that. rather dra the in i canly in the last -- dramatically in the last four years in terms

of natural gas. our production has moved up so the cost of natural gas today is two $2. >> right around $2 per 1000 cubic feet. >> almost $7 a few years ago. >> $13 at the turn of the century. >> i don't go back that far. seems like you didn't either. electricity, about electric cars, we're moving in that direction. we're not quite there yet. we're starting to move in that direction. biofuels, yes. not quite there yet. we're moving in that direction and lastly fuel efficiency. if i recall correctly president bush's goal was 35 miles per gallon. president obama's goal was over 50 miles per gallon. there have been dramatic improvement. i've seen figures in reputable newspapers, such as "the new york times", that will be fuel neutral in terms of imports by the year

2020. may even be exporting fossil fuels a decade or so later. so aren't we really marching now to the mr. smith's drum and accomplishing many of the things you've been advocating and probably in a shorter time frame than you foresaw? >> i think the answer to that question is yes. i think one of the very best things that has happened been this incredible technology that's been deployed for natural gas and now oil production and. as i mentioned, i believe that the position of the energy security leadership council on new fuel efficiency standards was very big part of the bush administration's decision to, to embrace them in the 2007 energy act. we certainly worked on it hard at the time. so, yes, we're moving in the right direction but i'll tell you one of the reasons

that i agreed to do these sessions today. and it gets it to, to exactly the point that bob lutz was talking about. our national dialogue today is we take one incident about a lithium ion battery fire three weeks after a government crash test that was caused because they didn't take the fluid out of the vehicle. yet there are 275,000 internal combustion engines that catch on fire every year. now when you have got that type of hyperbole and that type of misinformation the --. >> [inaudible]. >> well, i don't know, but i know this much we're here to try to correct some of those misconceptions but that is doing a disservice to the american public that doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem and that these technologies are safe. now, listen, we know where

lithium ion battery technology at fedex very well. we transport them in our airplanes. they can combust under certain circumstances but they have not in the automotive sector because of the tremendous amount of r&d and manufacturing prowess that bob put into that product and presumably toyota put into theirs and so forth. so we are definitely moving in the right direction. we're down 5% year-over-year. but until we get to that point, and i, my guess is that people think that we'll be a net oil exporter, probably a bit overoptimistic based on the depletion rates of oil coming up because of fracking but until we get to the point where we are much less dependent on foreign petroleum, the foreign policy options that the successors to general conway

and general kelly have to deal with are tremendously circumscribed what we can do. we have to just as, as the general told you, at the joint chiefs of staff they're not only talking about the economic implications whether we do this, that and the other thing and if we have another oil crisis, it will put the united states back into significant recession. and as i said based on my experience over these 40 years, given the demand growth of china and india and the emerging economies, from this point forward, as long as we have this kind of imbalance, as soon as the united states starts showing any type of significant economic growth, i can almost assure you that that economic growth and wealth will be expropriated by an increase in oil prices because it would not be, in the best interests of the people that control the oil

market through a the can tell to do anything other than that that. >> [inaudible]. thank you so much for your remarks. [inaudible] in old nuclear power plants is, a, japanese were confronted with severe electric shortage this coming summer. do you have a view how the japanese government substitutes the electricity production. and b, given the nuclear issue, [inaudible] energy mix coming from different plants and u.k. is 20% but after the nuclear accident, german government

it changed its policy of nuclear plants. do you have any view other how other e.u. member states might change the energy mix? thank you very much. >> my view and the view of the energy security leadership council that nuclear power generation is something that the united states should embrace and continue. in the history of human technologies producing power i don't think any have the, the safety record that nuclear does. i mean there have been far more people lost in coal mining accidents and refinery fires, one thing or another than nuclear. i think the real problem in the horrible tragedy in japan and of course we were very heavily involved in that. fedex served japan. we tried to help in every way we could taking supplies so i know the extent of the devastation but the

fundamental problem in fukushima was the unfortunate decision to locate the nuclear power plants where there could be a tsunami that kept the power plants from being safely cooled down. so i don't have any doubt about the fact whether the, the german government has made their decision, sticks or not, i would doubt, to tell you the truth. the advantages of nuclear power, particularly for people concerned with emissions and so forth, there's a high likelihood there will be a lot of nuclear power utilized in next 20 or 30 years, if not europe and united states, certainly in china and elsewhere. >> steve cheney with the american security project. let me thank all of you for

our service to the corps and our country right up front. i'm with the american security project. we cover ideas about. bob, secretary mavis went up on the hill and was grilled hard about the navy's use of biofuels when i think his decision and the administration's decision to use biofuels is the right one. my question is to fred smith on fedex. you have so many airplanes now, that technology has been proven biofuels work in airplanes. do you have any plans to use biofuel? and secondly one of the big problems with that indus of course is funding on the technology and development side of the front end. it would seem to me from the industry side it would be a good thing to invest in. >> well, the industry is working very hard on this. boeing and airbus who agree on very few things, just in the last week alongwith embraer of brazil announced

a consortium to work on biofuels. lufthansa, virgin, klm, i think alaska airlines, quantity tus, -- quantity tus, many -- quantas, many commercial airplanes powered fuels mixed with fuels made from jetropha. algae and so forth. that has all been certified. as i mentioned earlier today, the navy flown the f-18, they call it the greenhorn net. we have two or three initiatives at fedex. this has been derided to some degree by the popular press and conservative wings and again i am a conservative so, let me re-emphasize that, about the president's remarks on algae. but i think the president is absolutely right. the most likely biofuel that

can be produced at scale is likely to come from algae. exxon has invested $600 million with craig venter in, the individual who decoded the genome. we're working with an australian company that seems to have some pretty good technology to make jet fuel feedstock out of algae produced in bio reactors. algae is prolific both in the sea and in static water. it can be made in bio reactors. it doesn't compete like corn does for crops and airable land and so forth. if we get lucky and, you know the right chemistry can be put together i think biofuels is definitely part of the mix but it is strictly at this point in time a matter of the scale production costs. it is not a technical issue

anymore. >> we have time for one last question. i will turn it over to my colleague lee ames. >> thank you. i noticed from the economic analysis that the council has authorized, you called for and mr. smith mentioned this morning, you called for the phasing out eventually of the subsidies to the electric vehicles and -- >> we'll leave this event at this point to go live now to the u.s. holocaust memorial museum in washington the remarks from president obama, commemorating the holocaust. we have holocaust survivor. e lie weisel

[applause] >> mr. president, mr. president, chairman, fellow holocaust survivors and their families, the family of officer, tief, jones, who was gunned down by murderer here in the museum, actor saul broomfield and ladies and gentlemen, i stand before you today as a proud american.

the jew in me is infinitely proud to be with the president of the united states in this museum which is together with the center in jerusalem the greatest in the world and the most important of all. this country, the united states of america, has welcomed the great majority of survivors of what we so poorly call the holocaust. it is a place of redemption, a place of rare unity. presidents of both parties from jimmy carter to george bush have spoken to us here and now we are honored that president barack obama is with us today. it is also a place of questions and some of them,

if not all of them, many disturbing questions which remain challenging about the possibilities of power, about suffering of victims, about a the massacre of children. these questions of course are relevant. why did not americans opened its doors to more of the doom than it could have? why did not the allies bomb railways going to auschwitz? in those years hungarian jews arrived, i'm one of them and 10,000 were gassed every night with bombing the

allies would have stopped that process for a while. from the very beginning of this institution we attempted to confront the already distant past with this terrible, tragic truth and the questions we are compelled to ask. the jewish people commitment to memory is as old as its state. we had a problem that we didn't know how to deal with so much suffering, so much evil which had so much power. never has one people been condemned by another people to total annihilation. what are the questions of course? who are we to remember? the perpetrators? the bystanders? the multitudes of victims, all of them jews?

it became clear to us right at the beginning that while not all victims were jewish, all jews were victims. young and old, rich and poor, teacher and students. those from the cities and the smallest villages, all were targeted and my god, the children. why the children? and the old people, why the old people? for the enemy of the future of the children or of the past of the old. now we know that this tragedy, we know how it was done but not why it was done. the why is metaphysical but

physically we don't know why, my god why did it happen? and what are the conclusions? one thing we do know. that it could have been prevented. the greatest tragedy in history could have been prevented had the civilized world spoken up, taken measures in 1939, 40, 41, 42 even. each time in berlin goebbels and the others always wanted to see what will be the reaction in washington and london and europe. but there was no reaction. they felt they could continue. so in this place we may ask,

have we learned anything from it? if so, how is it that assad is still in power? how is it that the holocaust number one denier, ahmadinejad, is still a president? he who threatens to use nuclear weapons. to use nuclear weapons to destroy the jewish state. have we not learned? we must. we must know that when evil has power it is almost too late. preventative measures are important. we must use those measures to prevent another catastrophe. and whenever communities are threatened by anyone, we must not allow them to do

what they intend doing. of course one more question to the believer and god in all this. but then what does it mean? was god fed up with his creation? however auschwitz did not come from the heavens. heaven didn't make auschwitz. human beings did it, human beings. the killer were human beings. auschwitz was conceived by human beings, implemented by human beings. what is it about the human psyche or destiny perhaps, that could allow human beings to become inhuman?

mr. president, we are here in this place of memory. of course i remember when you and i went to bucwald. we spoke about all kinds of things but now i hope you understand in this place why israel is so important, not only to the. >> that i am or to the jewish people but to the world. israel can not remember and because it remembers, it must be strong. just to defend the sole survival and its own destiny. mr. president, you spoke about buchenwald. in buchenwald you quietly, elegantly, gave me the last

word. today, the last word is yours. ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct privilege and my pleasure to give you my friend, the president of the united states, mr. barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. . .

>> along with sarah bloomfield, the outstanding director here. we just spent some time among the exhibits, and this is now the second visit i've had here. my daughters have come here. it is a sering occasion whenever you visit. and as we walked, i was taken

back to the visit that elie mentioned, the time that we traveled together to buicken wald -- pew can wald. and i recall how he showed me the barbed wire especially ifs and the -- fences and the guard towers, and we walked the rows where the barracks once stood where so many left this earth including elie's father. we stopped at an old photo, men and women lying in their wooden bunks barely more than skeletons. and if you look closely, you can see a 16-year-old boy looking right at the camera, right into your eyes. you can see elie. and at the end of our visit that day, elie spoke of his father. i thought one day i will come back and speak to him, he said,

of times in which memory has become a sacred duty of all people of goodwill. elie, you've devoted your life to upholding that sacred duty. you've challenged us all as individuals and as nations to do the same with the power of your example, the eloquence of your words as you did again just now. so to you and marian, we are extraordinarily grateful. to sarah, to tom bernstein, to josh bolton, members of the united states holocaust memorial council and everyone who sustains this living memorial, thank you for welcoming us here today. to the members of congress, members of the diplomatic corps including ambassador michael orrin of israel, we are glad to be with you. and most of all, we are honored to be in the presence of men and women whose lives are a

testament to the endurance and the strength of the human spirit. the inspiring survivors. it is a privilege to be with you on a very personal level. as i've told some of you before, i grew up hearing stories about my great uncle, a soldier in the 89th infantry division, who was stunned and shaken by what he saw when he helped to liberate part of buchanwald, and i'll never forget what i saw where so many per riched with the words of -- per perished with the words of -- [inaudible] on their lips. i've stood with survivors in the old warsaw ghettos where monument honors heroes who said we will not go quietly, we will stand up, we will fight back. and i've walked those sacred

grounds with its lesson for all nations, the show cannot be denied. and during my visit, i was given a gift inscribed with those words from the book of job. has the like of this happened in the the days of your fathers? tell your children about it and let your children tell theirs and their children the next generation, and can that's why we're -- and that's why we're here. not simply to remember, but to speak. i say this as a president, and i say it as a father. we must tell our children about a crime unique in human history, the one and only holocaust. six million innocent people, men, women, children, babies,

sent to their deaths just for being different. just for being jewish. we tell them, our children, about the millions of poles and catholics and gay people and so many others who also must never be forgotten. let us tell our children not only how they died, but also how they lived. as fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters who loved and hoped and dreamed just like us. we must tell our children how this evil was allowed to happen. because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts and because so many others stood silent.

let us also tell our children about the rations among the nations, among them was jan karski who witnessed jews being put on cattle car, who saw the killings and who told the truth all the way to president roosevelt himself. he passed away more than a decade ago, but today i'm proud to announce that this spring i will honor him with america's highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom. [applause] we must tell our children, but more than that we must teach them because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture.

awareness without action changes nothing. in this sense, never again is a challenge to us all to pause and to look within. for the holocaust may have reached its barbaric climax, but it started in the hears of ordinary men and women, and we have seen it again; madness that can sweep through peoples, sweep through nations, embed itself. the killings in cambodia, the killings in rwanda, the killings in bosnia, the killings in darfur. they shock our conscious, but they are the awful extreme of a

spectrum of ignorance and intolerance that we see every day, the bigotry that says another person is less than my equal, less than human. these are the seeds of hate that we cannot let take root in our heart. never again is a challenge to reject hatred in all of its forms including antisemitism which has no place in a civilized world, and today just steps from where he gave his life protecting this place, we honor the memory of officer stephane tyrone johns whose family joins us today. never again is a challenge to defend the fundamental right of free people and free nations, to exist in peace and security, and that includes the state of israel.

and on my visit to the old warsaw ghetto, a woman looked me in the eye, and she wanted to make sure america stood with israel. she said, it's the only jewish state we have. and i made her a promise in that solemn place. i said i will always be there for israel. so when efforts are made to equate zionism to racism, we reject them. when international forrah ainge si loud -- sing aloud unfair resolutions, we resist them. when attempts are made to delegit maize the state of -- delegitimize the state of israel, we oppose them. the united states will do everything in our power to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. never again is a challenge to

societies. we're joined today by communities who have made it your mission to prevent mass atrocities in our time. this museum's committee of conscious, ngos, faith groups, college students, you've harnessed the tools of the digital age; online maps and satellites and video and social media campaigns seen by millions. you understand that change comes from the bottom up, from the grassroots. you understand to quote the task force convened by this museum, preventing genocide is an achievable goal. it is an achievable goal but is one that does not start from the top, it starts from the bottom up. it's remarkable as we walked through this exhibit, elie and i were talking as we looked at the

unhappy record of the state department and so many officials here in the united states during those years, and he asked what would you do? but what you all understand is you don't just count on officials, you don't just count on governments. you count on people and mobilizing their conscious. and finally, never again is a challenge to nations. it's a bitter truth. too often the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale, and we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save. three years ago today i joined many of you for a ceremony of remembrance at the u.s. capitol,

and i said that we had to do everything we can to prevent and end atrocities. and so i want to report back to some of you today to let you know that as president i've done my utmost to back up those words with deeds. last year in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge i made it clear that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the united states of america. that does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there's an injustice in the world. we cannot and should not. it does mean we possess many tools, diplomatic and political and economic and financial and intelligence and law enforcement and our moral suasion. and using these tools over the past three years, i believe -- i

know -- that we have saved countless lives. when the referendum in south sudan was in doubt, it threatened to reignite a conflict that had killed millions, but with determined diplomacy -- including by some people in this room -- south sudan became the world's newest nation, and our diplomacy continues because in darfur, javier, the blue nile, the killing of innocents must come to an end. the presidents of sudan and south sudan must have the courage to negotiate, because the people of sudan and south sudan deserve peace. that is work that we have done. and it has saved lives. when the incumbent in coit story threaten today give up power, it

unleashed killings, but with regional and international diplomacy and u.n. peace keepers who stood their ground and protected civilians, the former leader is now in the hague, and the country is governed by its rightful leader, and lives were saved. when the libyan people demanded their rights and muammar gadhafi's forces bore down on benghazi, a city of 700,000, and threatened to hunt down its people like rats, we forged with allies and partners a coalition that stopped his troops in their tracks, and today the libyan people are forging their own future. and the world can take pride in the innocent lives that we saved. and when the lord's resistance army led by joseph kony continued its atrocities in central africa, i ordered a

small number of american advisers to help uganda and its neighbors pursue the lra. and when i made that announcement, i directed my national security council to review our progress after 150 days. we have done so, and today i can announce that our advisers will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice and to save lives. it is part of a regional strategy. [applause] part of our regional strategy to end the scourge of the lra and realize a future where no african child is stolen from their family, no girl is raped, and no boy is turned into a child soldier. we've stepped up our efforts in other ways. we're doing more to protect women and girls from the horror of wartime sexual violence.

with the arrest of fugitives like ma lad itch, charged with ethnic cleansing in bosnia. the world sent a message to war criminals everywhere, we will not relent in bringing you to justice. be on notice. for the first time, we explicitly barred entry into the united states of those responsible for war crimes and crime against humanity. now we're doing something more. we're making sure that the united states government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. so i created the first-ever white house position dedicated to this task. it's why i created the new atrocities prevention board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. this is not an afterthought.

this is not a sideline in our foreign policiful -- policy. the board will convene for the first time today at the white house, and i'm pleased that one of its first acts will be to meet with some of your organizations; citizens and activists who are partners in this work, who have been carrying this torch. going forward, we'll strengthen our tools across the board, and we'll create new ones. the intelligence community will prepare, for example, the first-ever national intelligence estimate on the risk of mass atrocities and genocide. and we're going to institutionalize the focus on this issue. across government, alert channels will insure that information about unfolding crises and dissenting opinions quickly reach decision makers including me.

our treasury department will work to more quickly deploy its financial tools to block the flow of money to abusive regimes. our military will take additional steps to incorporate the prevention of atrocities into its doctrine and its planning. and the state department will increase its ability to surge our diplomats and experts in a crisis. usaid will invite people and high-tech companies to help create new technologies to quickly expose violations of human rights, and we'll work with other nations so the burden is better shared because this is a global responsibility. in many short, we need to be -- in short, we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities. because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people. [applause]

we recognize that even as we do all we can, we cannot control every event. and when innocents suffer, it tears at our conscience. elie alluded to what we feel as we see the syrian people subjected to unspeakable violence simply for demanding their universal rights. and we have to do everything we can. and as we do, we have to remember that despite all the tanks and all the snipers, all the torture and brutality unleashed against them, the syrian people still brave the streets. they still demand to be heard, they still seek their dignity. the syrian people have not given up which is why we cannot give

up. and so with allies and partners we will keep increasing the pressure with the diplomatic effort to further isolate assad and his regime so that those who stick with assad know that they are making a losing bet. and we'll keep increasing sanctions to cut off the regime from the money it needs to survive. we'll sustain a legal effort to document atrocities so killers face justice, and a humanitarian effort to get relief and medicine to the syrian people. and we'll keep working with the friends of syria to increase support for the syrian opposition as it grows stronger. indeed, today we're taking another step. i've signed an executive order that authorizes new sanctions against the syrian government and iran and those that have bet them for using technologies to monitor and track and target citizens for violence. these technologies should not empower -- these technologies should be in place to empower citizens, not to repress them.

and can it's one more step -- and it's one more step that we can take toward the day that we know will come, the end of the assad regime that has brutalized the syrian people and allow the syrian people to chart their own destiny. even with all the efforts i've described today, even with everything that hopefully we have learned, even with the incredible power of museums like in this one, even with everything that we do to try to teach our children about our own responsibilities, we know that our work will never be done.

there will be conflicts that are not easily resolved. there will be senseless deaths that aren't prevented. there will be stories of pain and hardship that test our hopes and try our conscience. and in such moments it can be hard to imagine a more just world, it can be tempting to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to man's endless capacity for cruelty. it's tempting sometimes to believe that there is nothing we can do. and all of us have those doubts, all of us have those moments,

perhaps especially those who work most ardently in these fields. so in the end i come back to something elie said that day we visited buchenwald together. reflecting on all that he had endured, he said we had the right to give up. we had the right to give up on humanity, to give up on culture, to give up on education, to give up on the possibility of living one's life with dignity in a world that has no place for dignity. they had that right. imagine what they went through. they had the right to give up. nobody would bedrudge them that. begrudge them that. who would question someone giving up in such circumstances?

but, elie said, we rejected that possibility, and we said, no, we must continue believing in a future. to stare into the abyss, to face the darkness and insist there is a future. to not give up. to say, yes, to life. to believe in the possibility of justice. to elie and to the survivors who are here today, thank you for not giving up. [applause] you showed us the way. [applause]

you show us the way. if you cannot give up, if you can believe, then we can believe. if you can continue to strive and speak, then we can speak and be strive for a future where there's a place for dignity for every human being. that has been the cause of your lives, it must be the work of our nation and of all nations. so god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. [applause]

[applause] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> former vice president dick cheney is interviewed by c-span's political editor steve scully today. mr. cheney said the republican party should unite behind presidential candidate mitt

romney at the wyoming republican state convention and called president obama a, quote, unmitigated disaster to the country, unquote. this exclusive interview is live at 1 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. this week c-span brings you three days of testimony from rupert murdoch and his son, former chairman of news international, james murdoch. coverage begins tomorrow morning with son james murdoch and continues wednesday and thursday mornings with father rupert murdoch. they're going before the levinson inquiry investigating the practice of their british newspapers in light of the phone-hacking scandal. live at 5 a.m. eastern time on c-span2 and c-span radio. >> you're watching c-span2, with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events, and every weekend

the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> international monetary fund managing director chris steven lagarde spoke -- christine lagarde spoke saturday about the agreement to help the eurozone, current economic conditions and the consensus among nations for structural reforms to reduce debt. she was at the imf world bank annual spring meeting. these remarks are about 35 minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this press conference on behalf of the international monetary and financial committee, the governing committee of the imf. it's my pleasure to introduce you this afternoon to the chairman of the committee, ms.

tharman shanmugaratnam, and mr. david lippman and, of course, the managing director of the imf, christine lagarde. we are on the record this afternoon, i will ask you to identify yourself by name and affiliation, to keep the question short if you can, try and take as many as we can. and with that, let me turn to the minister. you have the communique, i believe. the minister will give a few opening remarks followed by madam lagarde. minister? >> thank you. you can hear me? thank you. well, um, i'll give you a very quick sense of our discussions yesterday and today. we had a joint press conference with the g20 yesterday where we announced the strengthening of the global safety net particularly by building up resources of the fund. that was an important step

forward. but today beyond that announcement, um, in our sessions yesterday and today we focused principally on the real solutions to the crisis, the sustainable solutions out of this crisis that the safety net or the firewall is meant to support. um, we touched briefly on this at yesterday's press conference, but that is our main focus. it was about the real theater of policy action which is about fiscal reforms and be structural reform -- and structural reforms. not just in europe, although that's, obviously, an important focus of our attentions, but also on the united states as well as more generally in the international, amongst all players in the international economy. um, there was a very strong consensus, i would say, in our

discussions on the need for everything that we do to be supportive of medium-term fiscal consolidation, particularly in the advanced economies. and that applies both to europe as well as the united states. a very strong emphasis that everything we do has to be focused on achieving medium-term fiscal consolidation. and in that regard there was also consensus that the steps to be taken not only the steps that involve fiscal adjustments, in other words, a reduction to fiscal deficits and a sustained period of running improved prime rebalances or structural balances in government budgets, but also, equally important, the need to restore -- [inaudible] over the medium term. it's weak partly because of the adjustments which we have to go

through in the international economy and especially among the advanced economies, but what was really critical in all our minds was to get back to normal growth over the medium term. and preferably, sooner rather than later. in other words, within two to three years to get back to normal growth if possible in as much of the advanced world as possible. because if we don't get back to normal growth, if we don't get gdp back to its potential levels, then fiscal sustainability is not possible either. so it's not just the budgetary reforms, the tax reforms and spending reforms that are important, but also the growth reforms. and that involves the way we craft our fiscal adjustments, the way we go about our tax and spending policies, but very importantly it involves structural reforms in order to bring confidence and investment back into our economies. there was also discussion on other parts of the world and how they can play a complimentary

role in this very important adjustment process within the advanced economies. so that was the main focus. it was about medium-term sustainability and, very importantly, about bringing growth back, bringing growth and jobs back. >> thank you very much. i'd like to just begin by telling you how important it is sometimes to have a good chairman, and i have to tell you that tharman is just a superb chairman, and this should be recognized even in front of you. he was terrific and took us through a long journey where we discussed all the issues that he has indicated; thorough, substantive issues. and as you can imagine, we talked a lot about certain regions, we talked a lot about certain countries, the united states, the euro, the right

balance between emerging economies and other economies and all of that with the perspective of that medium-term anchoring that is so needed both for fiscal policies and for the purpose of stimulating that growth and this job creation that is so much needed. so it's not always ease is si to conduct those discussions with such a large number of constituents in the room, and it worked extremely well. second tribute to singapore. for those of you who are familiar with the imfc traditionally and you've seen photos, there's this huge, big round of tables, and it's relatively hostile, in essence, because everybody's protected behind their table. well, we did it the singapore way, and we had chairs. it was much more fluid. people were much more in each other's face and posture which was extremely good for the dialogue that we had. so it was lively and less of

this sort of recital of narratives preprepared beforehand. just to give you a little bit of the taste of the discussions. because the form and the substance very often interlink, and that certainly was the case in the course of those discussions. so in terms of momentum, in terms of positive signals, we had a lot in the last day and a half. very open and frank discussions, very respectful but very true to each other as well. and focus on medium term, necessary achievements. i think that if there were two con cements that were -- concepts that were shared across the board, it was structural reforms and discipline. and that, also, underpins the medium-term and fiscal consolidation that tharman was referring to. now, to top it up, i would say,

because these structural reforms are longstanding initiatives and the anchoring of fiscal consolidation and expectations are also difficult things to do, it's nice to have a big umbrella or a big firewall, however you want to call it. and that was really the achievement of yesterday thanks to your initiative, again, to put the g20 and the imfc together for the purpose of the build-up of the resources. and finally, on, you know, sort of more domestic and internal issues through the imf for those that are expert in imf issues, we had, also, a strong endorsement of the completion of the quota and governance reform that is due to be completed for the tokyo meeting which will be in october 2012. we have still a little way to go on the quota, we have more way to go on the reform of the governance, but there was a

strong consensus, and you will find it in the communique to move on with this reform. equally, there was a strong endorsement of our determination to improve constantly our survey minneapolis. survey minneapolis is one of our missions whether it's bilateral, traditional, and it can be improved or whether it's more pullty -- multilateral and it's rather new, but it also can be improved and there was strong endorsement with the imfc to continue with that and to complete the reforms that are needed to that effect. so very positive that there's a burning question, he's raising his hand, but ores have too. [laughter] >> actually, i want to begin with a lady, right in the front. thank you. >> thank you very much.

congratulations, i think that this meeting will prove to be a great success, but my first question is, managing director, do you think the moment has been achieved in your will, and it seems to me that the brick countries do want to link the resources contribution with the governance and quota reform. do you think their strategy will be effective and successful to push up the governance and quota reform? and my final question about china, how will you label china? if not substantial, undervalued after the imf has revised its forecast for the current account of gdp in the next few years. >> so three questions. one question, please, from now on. thank you. >> washington moment? yes. you know, the spirit, the momentum, the dynamic that was created in the course of this

meeting, and, you know, we will hear more feedback because it's, you know, the spur of the moment you tend to be quite upbeat about what has been achievedded, and then you have to sort of let it sit a bit and wait for membership feedback. and we will seek that feedback. we want to understand whether they were satisfied and whether they think that collectively we've achieved what, you know, we could achievement and at best both in terms of form and substance. but i personally feel that that washington moment was clearly in the room in the course of the meetings. on the issue of the, um, you know, sort of conditionality, it was never expressed as a conditionality. there was a keen determination on the part of all, but maybe more so from the, from some of the emerging market economies. but there was also a definite commitment to participate in the tally, if you will. and on the last issue that

you've raised, this is not completed yet. it's a matter that is under review and that our team both at research and -- i mean, the various teams that are working on this initiative, the report will come out later, but we have not completed the work on this. but we have signaled how important that variation of the -- [inaudible] had been and how strong a step it was in the right direction. >> okay, thank you. let's take ian's questions. >> thank you. ian talley, dow jones. one question for madam managing director, one for the chairman, please. some finance ministers have said that there are additional, the g20, the imfc have interpreted

additional safeguards for the use of the $430 billion in resources. can you say exactly what those additional safeguards exactly are? it's my understanding that there is, actually, no change to the imf rules and regulations, principles on that. and secondly, the draft statement, imfc statement said that the, that advanced economies should be prepared to exit expansive monetary policy, but i see that that has been taken out of the final communique. can you say why that is, please? thank you. >> okay. so the first question for the managing director, the second one for the chairman. thank you. >> you're absolutely right, there's no change to the article. but what has been clearly

reminded to in the course of the discussion is that, number one, those bilateral loans which are to be drafted and signed from now on do not form a special pot of fund or coffers that would have e.u. label on it. it's for all members of the imf. so that's principle number one. principle number two, it must be used under the strict, exact, even-handed, nondiscriminatory, demanding terms that we have for all our programs. and, you know, that's the strength of the imf. it's the conditionalities, the review, the monitoring and the sequencing of the lending that goes with it. >> well, to respond to what christine just said, you'll notice that there are a fair

number of non-european countries and non-g20 countries that decided to participate in the imf resources. and it is very important to all of us that any use of these funds be accompanied by the same strict conditionality and rigor that the imf is associated with in all its programs. that was very important to the british as george osborne has said quite plainly, very important to all of us. contributing to the fund to use as it sees fit around the world, and whoever the borrowers are, whatever the causes, it's got to be the same fund be standards. because the credibility of the fund is what we are attempting to bolster through this effort. on your second question, um, i won't read too much into the final editing that goes into the statement. the statement does emphasize there's a very important nuance in the statement on monetary policy.

it doesn't just say that monetary policy needs to remain accommodative. it says it needs to remain accommodative as long as inflation prospects remain anchored and regrowth persists. and that was a very important emphasis, quite frankly, in our discussions. and it captured both sides of the atlantic as well as the emerging countries. and we spent some time discussing this in the context of the emerging countries as well. we were all, we were all pretty much of the same mind on the importance of insuring that inflationary expectations remain anchored, in other words, they remain low and in check, and if there was any indications, any trends indicating that we're likely to the lose control of inflation further down the road, there was a general sense that monetary policy being very easy would no longer be advisable. so i think there was a good meeting of the minds on that.

>> okay, thanks. going to switch and a lady again. over here on the right, thank you. >> thank you. martha venice, tvi portugal. madam lagarde, the imf has said it's ready to adopt some of the bailout programs if, in case it's needed. and my question is, do you feel the need to adopt the bailout program to portugal sometime soon? and if not, if you think that portugal is on the right track. thank you. >> you know, the portuguese program has been underway for, what, less than a year now? if i recall? and it works like any of our programs. it belongs to the country, it has political endorsement, and the portuguese government and opposition did a fantastic job in that respect because they came together as members of the

imf came together yesterday and today to endorse it. so it's the program of portugal as negotiated with the imf, but it's their program. and what we do is that we conduct regular review. as you know, we send the mission team on the ground, they work with the authorities to make sure that the targets have been reached within various timetables that has been adopted and agreed between us. so i don't see any reason for any change to the portuguese program. >> okay, thanks -- >> [inaudible] >> well, i think we, the review that was conducted certainly concluded that the program was on track. >> yes, sir. yes. >> thank you. eric schneider with "the washington post." for mr. tharman and, madam lagarde, chime in the if you want to. but coming from a part of the

world that really is reshaping the global economy through thrift and competition and productivity, do you feel that the industrialized world, the old industrialized world, the old economies have a realistic sense of the adjustment their societies are going to have to go through to take advantage of this two to three-year window you talk about? and what are the implications if they don't kind of get their act together in this, you know, reasonable medium term framework? >> well, to be quite candid, um, i have a lot more of that sense now than i did three to four years ago. and i think i'd be accurately reflecting the discussions we've been having when i say that, um, across the room amongst the advanced countries -- i'm not sure of the term you used, western economies -- there's a very strong resolve to get to the heart of issues of

competitiveness, thrift, rebuilding of household and government balance sheets. very strong resolve. and, frankly, it's quite courageous. politically, it's quite courageous, what we are doing. because there have been very strong expectations built up over the years for more of the same, and it has taken tremendous political courage particularly in the last year to begin to switch cause and to paint a vision that leads to a better future. and we're all very supportive of that. we know it's going to be a long road. this is the a multiyear journey, and there'll be pitfalls along the way which is why christine's umbrella is extremely important. because there will be pitfalls. it's going to be a very challenging journal with politics intersecting with economics. and i'm a lot more confident now than i was a few years ago.

and i would finally just add that, um, one of the things that we'll have to also watch out for in the nonresident part of the world is hubris. we'll have to avoid thinking that we've got it all right and whether some fiscal policies or savings policies or competitiveness policies, that we've discovered the new golden equilibrium. there's a lot of learning to do on both sides. >> thank you. there's a lady -- yes, with your hand up. yes? >> good afternoon. [inaudible] how would be the work with low-income countries, especially in latin america? and do you think these countries will be able to make -- [inaudible] >> you know, we don't talk enough about the work that the

fund does with the low-income countries. of the 48 programs or so that we have around the world, more than half of them are with low-income countries. they're not for huge amounts because everything is proportional. but we do a lot of work, and we develop technical assistance, advice, capacity building for them. so, you know, we do as much as we can to help the low-income countries. we will work a lot on the countries in transition from the northern africa and arabic world, priestly and otherwise known -- previously and otherwise known as the spring countries, arab spring countries, and it's a real focus for the fund as well. so i am confident. the you look today at -- if you look today at where are the countries in the world with double-digit growth, you will find them in low-income countries. and of those, about two-thirds

in africa. >> okay, thank you. right down in the front here, gentleman. >> thank you. i'm -- [inaudible] from greece. i have two short questions and easy questions. the first one -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> yes. first one is does the imf is in discussion with the government of cypress for a bailout program? because there are rumors around. the second question is, did you think about the possibility the parties that are against the greek program to have the majority in the greek parliament on may 6? thank you very much. >> you know, our people talk to, they contact all the time all over the world, so i'm sure that they are in discussions with anybody in the mediterranean; north, south, in between.

but that may be a discussion on any kind of program with cypress, not to my knowledge. on the second one, you know, i'd be the last person -- especially today -- to predict the outcome of a political election. >> okay. i'm going to go over here, the lady at the front. >> thank you. i'm from egypt. i want to ask about how the imf support the arab countries that changes the policy, and what about the agreement with the arab spring countries, especially egypt? thank you. >> well, i'll share a secret with you. um, which i'm sure will be well kept. [laughter] we have a commitment to the arab countries in transition, commitment that by our annual meeting in tokyo, we will have

several programs in place to help them navigate the transition. will not be enough be. it will require other supporters, donors, partners to help financially and in trade opening as well. and if i have to tell you i think relative to other parts of the world, it's probably the part of the world where we give the highest, large number of -- largest number of technical assistance hours, days, man or woman hour. in all sorts of matters; public finances, taxation system, all sorts of fields where they seek our assistance. you would be surprised. dozens and dozens of technical assistance mission we have fielded over the last couple of years. >> good. i think we have time for a couple more. gentleman in the pink shirt.

>> [inaudible] you mentioned in the communique that the framework should be significantly enhanced. does it mean that the imf would take in consideration the exchange rate policy of your member if -- member? >> very pointed question. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. it's one of the components that we would be looking at, clearly. there are others, but it's one of them, yes. >> okay. lady way over here. yep. >> thank you. i want to -- [inaudible] in exchange raid. alicia delgado from mexico.

in the communique says that the members' collective responsibility to avoid protection is in all form is protected. [inaudible] in the exchange rate fund because some countries are -- [inaudible] some countries are using control exchange rates. some are having problems with the outflows and inflows of the capital flows. and there is an increasing use of the exchange rates. they are not more flexible. what are you going to do? >> go ahead. >> um, we discussed exchange rates yesterday and today. um, and here again i'd say compared to a year ago we had a good meeting of minds, pretty much a consensus amongst emerging countries and advanced

countries. um, whether we were talking about china or brazil or anyone else, we all agreed that there had to be, um, only greater flexibility in exchange rates over time. we agreed we were getting there. and we also agreed that from time to time capital flows can be very troublesome. the fund has shifted it thinking on the matter, and we've all shifted our thinking as to what's a sensible tool kit for emerging countries when faced with volatile capital flows. so there was a recognition that in instances where you face severe volatility of capital flows, some form of management of those capital flows could be sensible. in other words, where it's not due to your own domestic policy makes us being out of sync with, you know, economic fundamentals but simply because of the vicissitudes of the global capital markets, some sort of capital flow management was

sensible. and these were statements that were made, that were agreed to on all sides. so i found that quite encouraging. we have moved some distance in the last year on this issue. .. been a great, great, work experience for us. >> good. i was pointing to this

gentleman, the second row. yes, you sir. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. right here. second row. no, next to you. right here. >> thank you. from singapore. question on economic reforms in mir ran march. would imf see a faster lifting u.s. and european sanctions in order to push forward financial and economic reforms we're seeing now? aside from providing technical assistance what else would the imf be looking to do in the months and years ahead? thank you. >> just like everybody from singapore you're really fast, huh? your question about the advanced economies, u.s. and europe? what? >> mir ran march. >> what do you see as the long-term and -- >> yeah. i will tell you something.

we don't brag much about what we do and on this particular case others would have because we have been behind the scene discretely helping the myanmar authorities most recently to the currency reform. we've been working with the central bank of myanmar. it is a tribute to them they have made this change. done april the 1st, if i recall and it has been so successful and they are just going into a process. we continue to provide any technical assistance that they need. this is happening, you know, on a daily basis as we speak. >> [inaudible]. >> some of the sanctions have been lifted already. there is a momentum that is clearly initiated and my dearest hope is that it continues. >> we have one last question.

going to use the moderator prerogative. as you know we bring in several journalists to washington imf fellows. i would like to last question to come from one of our fellows right here. thank you. >> you can join the fellowship. >> thank you, good afternoon. from capital media group from macedonia. i would like to ask you how the euro crisis will affect the emerging countries in the southeastern of europe like balkans and macedonia? what are the main risks for these countries? and the second one macedonia has a special arrangement with the imf for 480 million euros from last year. despite that, our government is borrowing money on the commercial markets. do you think that is the right policy to borrow money with higher interest right now and to spend the main part for social transfers for pensions and salaries for administrations and not, but not for capital investments.

and do you plan to come to visit our region in macedonia? thank you. >> i will wait until my knee is fixed and then then i will get back on the road. on the, in consequences in southern europe or, you know, more, extensively central, eastern europe and large periphery of europe. clearly sort of immediate circle that is potentially exposed which is why it is so important that the europeans do what they're committed to do. they deliver on their program. that they move on with their structural reform as well as, you know, stick to the, the commitment to each other and for some of them to the larger community, which is what we are seeing at the moment. so that really is important to them. it is important to us but it is important to the likes of macedonia because the linkages between countries of central eastern southern europe and the core of the

euro area is extremely important particularly in the banking channels. in those countries there are lots of branches and subsidiaries euro-area banks and generally those channels are the contagion channels. i think there is a clear community of interest in the euro area doing what it has to do. on the macedonia program allow me to a little bit out of my depth because i'm not exactly sure where they stand on the review of the program. if you know more than i do, david, maybe you should tune in? >> [inaudible]. >> to borrow from the commercial banks when --? >> [inaudible]. we borrow money now with higher interest and the government is spending that money for social transfers and salaries for administration but not for capital investment.

do you think that is the right policy at this moment? >> i don't want to pass judgment on information that i have not verified with the team. i reserve my response and since you're a fellow journalist with us i will get back to you i promise. but we will check. >> thanks, everybody. >> this week c-span brings you three days of testimony from rupert murdoch and his son, the former chairman of the news international, james murdoch. coverage begins tomorrow morning with son james

murdoch and continues wednesday and thursday morning with the father, rupert murdoch. they're going before the leveson inquiry, investigating the practices of their british newspapers in light of phone-hacking investigation. that will be here on c-span2 and c-span radio live at 5:00 a.m. eastern. later today, former vice president dick cheney is interviewed by c-span's political editor steve scully. mr. cheney said the republican party should unite behind presidential candidate mitt romney at the wyoming republican state convention and called president obama, a quote, unmitigated disaster to the country. the interview is live at 1:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span and at c-span.org. >> there is room for positive government policy. it's the private sector that drives developments. it is the private sector that really fuels it. but always in our history we've had some vision where

we're going, some encouragement, some policy by the government and if ever we needed that it's right now when we have this imposing and opportunity-creating infrastructure of the 21st century. >> this year's studentcam competition asked students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's second prize winner selected the 19th amendment. >> the 19th amendment of course is the amendment that gave women the right to vote in this united states. >> women sufferage movement went from 1848 to 1940. >> the 19th amendment ratified with the perfect 6th state happened to be the tennessee the last state that could make it by 3/4 of

the state. >> generation of courage just women. and they were passionate and they were -- [inaudible] >> how early is american feminism start to appear? >> well, abigail adams was writing letters to john adams in the second continental congress. remember the ladies when you get this country hope to form one day. at least it goes back that far. ♪ . >> elizabeth stanton, martha write, mary ann mcclint tock, jay hunt held the first's women's right convention in seneca falls, new york. >> when they held the convention in 1848 and had subsequent conventions in the decade after that they weren't just talking about the right to vote. it wasn't until after the civil war that the focus of women's rights became narrow

to the right to sufficient prage. -- sufferage. >> women's right movement picked up steam as it attracted attention from the media. many more scoffed and scourned it as a ludicrous idea. it went against society taught for generations. susan b. anthony joined the cause as well. together they would make a significant step towards women rights. how did the civil war affects the women's rights movement? >> the women's rights comes directly at the anti-slavery movement. so they worked for a northern victory and abolishment of slavery. in turn they expected in time they would receive their rights, their due rights as women. that didn't happen. at the end of the civil war the 13th amendment was passed that ended slavery. the 14th and 15th amendmenteds were established that gave citizenship to former slaves and the established their

civil rights but nothing was done for the women. so the women supported the north. the north did not support the women in the end. >> in 1872 anthony voted. she argued the 14th amendment enabled her to vote. she was later jailed and her trial received national attention. despite her logical defense she was large charged with illegal voting. if she had won the women would have been able to vote on the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment did not only include women but specifically excluded them. the word men appear in the constitution but woman argued it referred to people as a species. but in the 14th amendment the word male appears which undeniably refers to the gender. >> the women's movement was largely diverse. they didn't have a unified voice. they didn't work together. there were differing opinions and differing personalities. >> susan b. anthony and elizabeth stanton formed the national women's sufferage

association. the status was to obtain women's sufferage through an amendment through the constitution. henry blackwell and lucy stone formed the women's sufferage association. to obtain women's sufferage through amendments to the individual state constitution. december 10th, 1968. wyoming became the first territory to pass a women sufferage law which would be followed by 16 states and territories the next nine years. >> giving women power as strategic, to really help these gain an equal footing with the established. >> in 1890 the national women's sufferage association and american women's sufferage association merged to form the national women's sufferage association whose strategy now was to obtain women's sufferage through state constitutional amendments.

>> susan b. anthony was tireless in promoting women's rights and women's sufferage but she never managed really to get it on the agenda in washington and alice poole came along and arranged the first really big demonstration. >> alice joined the national american women's sufferage association in 1910. she was immediately appointed as the head of a congressional committee whose goal was to obtain women's sufferage through an amendment through the federal constitution through the association's secondary goal. so in 1913 despite little funding, she executed one of the most famous women's sufferage marches which was held on the day of president woodrow wilson's inauguration. >> she organized a parade of 30,000 women marching on pennsylvania avenue. woodrow wilson who was arriving to be inaugurated

wondered where the crowds were to greet him when he arrived by train at union station. he was told they were over on the avenue looking at the ladies. >> paul founded awsa in 1914 and formed national women's party. tactics of this party achieving a federal amendment were a bit more extreme. >> 20th century women became much more militant where women were holding demonstrations. chanting outside the white house. ♪ . we're fighting for our rights militantly ♪. never you fear ♪. >> courageous women marched, they were arrested. >> sufferage became popular because of the march. because of the brutal treatment of the women received in prison. president wilson pardoned the women and then he thought they would just go

home. instead they went back and stood on the picket line in front of the white house again and he finally recognized this was a societal push that wasn't going to go away. and he packaged it as a war measure because he had made a promise that he would not send anything to congress that didn't have to do with the war effort. and so his argument was that women were on the front line. they were supporting the men and that they deserved the right to vote. >> you have to think about it, some of the first states to ratify the 19th amendment were states where women had the right to vote. women had been voting there in local elections. they had put people in the state assemblies, in the statehouse representatives and state senate that would be inclined to ratify an amendment like this. >> 19th amendment was ratified with the perfect 36th state which happened to be the tennessee, the last state that could make it by 3/4 the states needed.

there were 48 at the time. 35 had done it. rest said they wouldn't. became the perfect 36th and gave women the right to vote. ♪ . >> do you think women still suffer from discrimination today? >> [inaudible]. >> do you want to add to that? >> certainly it happens in different places. i don't think it will stop happening just because we want it to go away. >> women can vote and giving them a voice in their country and ability to more easily change it. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos. continue the discussion about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pains. >> house lawmakers are calling this week cyber week and this morning the "washington journal" discussed the cybersecurity legislation with a former

homeland security committee staff director and general counsel. it's about 40 minutes. >> host: joining us now at the table, jessica herrera flanagan, former staff director and for house homeland security committee. also a fellow at the center for national. cybersecurity, a lots of action in congress in the last several weeks and months but coming to the house floor this week, before we get to that, when we talk about cybersecurity, what exactly are we talking about? >> i think that is good question. i'm not sure everyone knows what it means. there is it still a lot of debate. that is part of what you're seeing play out this week and last couple months and will continue to play out over the next couple months. i think there are different definitions but what we're talking about this week is terms of cybersecurity protecting our critical infrastructures within the country. we're talking about protecting the chemical facilities, the smart grid, electrical grids more

generally. those things that operate and make us run our nation essentially. >> host: so, when the house starts its action this week where does it start? it's a really big topic here? what are they focusing on right now? >> guest: there will be four bills up. the most important bill that will go under rule and be considered is called the cyber intelligence and sharing protection act and that is coming out of the house intelligence committee. what that bill does allow for the sharing of cyber threat classified information from nsa and intelligence agencies with private sector, part of the critical structures we were talking about as well as others help protect infrastructures, cybersecurity. that will be the key bill. it does that as well as allowing sharing of information from the private sector to the federal government through liability protections and allows those entities to also protect their own systems. >> host: give us the recent history. why is the bill like this needed? >> guest: going back 20 years we've been looking for

ways how do you share the information the government knows about threats out there whether from foreign nation or terrorist with the private sector. the private sector doesn't necessarily have that information. likewise the government, the government doesn't run or operate critical infrastructures. so it need to have information what is going on in the real world. there's been a, there's been a confusion how do you share this information? what do you do about it? this is a way to try to facilitate that. we've been trying for a while. it hasn't worked and here's new way of doing it. >> the main bill you mentioned who are the main response, from? >> mike rogers from michigan. >> host: there are several bills as well describe those. >> sure there is a bill from mick mccaul from texas that would look at research and development efforts trying to facilitate the national science foundation efforts to do cyber workforce development and increase our workforce efforts within the federal government. there is bill by representative ralph hall which would deal with research and development

more on the scientific side. looking at r&d and networking and i.t. scientific systems. it is not a cyber bill per se but expanding a existing program to cyber security. there is bill by representative issa from california that deals with information security within the federal government. there is law there called federal fisma. federal information security management act. this is archaic law. this would be 2.0. this would fix all the laws that weren't fixed first time around. >> host: we'll talk about the senate a little later, once all the action in the house on cybersecurity is done, what happens? do they get rolled into a single bill? what will be the product the house will put out? >> guest: after this week you will see a rule and the bill, rogers bill go forward under that and possibly pass. there are concerns about that we can talk about in a minute the other three bills will go in suspension and they will likely be sent over as a package in the senate. that is still being debated as this weekend unfolds

let's put the numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest, jessica herrera-flanigan. we have separate lines for republicans democrats and independents. with very active weekend in the house at least in cybersecurity. we'll get to your calls in a moment. a lot of interesting questions out there. speak to us about the pushback. who may not like what is going on the house floor this week? >> guest: the mike rogers bill. sispa shortened version of the name there are lot of privacy and are liberty concerns. privacy and civil liberties group and democrats and ranking member bennie thompson raised concern about it because partially of information-sharing that can happen between the private sector and nsa there is some concern that the information being given will go straight to the intelligence agencies and that essentially you're creating a opportunity to create surveillance on domestic citizens that nsa and others are not allowed to do. >> host: how are the

concerns being followed up upon? >> guest: there have been some adjustments to the bill over last month or last week i should say including trying to strengthen the privacy and civil liberties provisions within the bill. there are attempts to make sure that it relates to civil to cyber security as opposed to any other purpose. that hasn't been backed by any of the critics out there. >> host: one headline in cq, democrats to shape agenda at cybersecurity bills head to the house floor. action begins tomorrow, maybe wednesday? >> guest: the rule begins tomorrow. >> host: watch it live here on c-span. we'll touch on the senate of course as time goes on but we want to get callers involved in this conversation. hunter is on the independent line from reading, california of the quite early out there. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: thank you for verying in. go ahead. >> caller: no problem. it took a while. i just wanted to ask miss herrera about the nsa

billing -- building almost completed in utah and how she feels about that as it concerns civil liberties? i have a love-hate relationship with it. i think it is important but also it's a little bit scary that every single solitary being originating on earth that goes to satellite is the going to be cataloged and collected. and my basic thing is, as an american i have traveled the world and i've seen a lot of projects get completely out of hand as the afghanistan thing is doing and my basic question is, you know, how does she feel, or how does one feel in the climate of d.c. about nsa construction of that huge building which

has four 25,000 square foot rooms of servers that will collect all data. >> host: thanks, hunter. we get the point. let's hear from our guest? >> guest: i am not familiar with the building being built. one thing i can say about the nsa its policies are such and it has been set up it goes, its surveillance efforts are supposed to be on the international front. they're not supposed to be doing surveillance on domestic individuals. any effort along those lines whether you're buildings here or in maryland or wherever it may be i think further those efforts to insure we have the latest information against threats, whatever threats they may be around the world. >> host: meadville, pennsylvania, warren, democrat, good morning. >> caller: hello. i'm, my question isn't about these, this cyber question right now but it does ask the department of homeland security, why is it they have placed an order for 450

million rounds of .40 caliber hollow-point bullets? what need would the department of homeland security have for that and not the u.s. army? >> host: something you could speak to? >> guest: i can, actually. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: one of the things people forget about the department of homeland security it has very law important law enforcement mission. it has number of entities engaged on law enforcement side including secret service, border patrol, immigration customs enforcement. these are doing criminal and law enforcement efforts along the border within the interior. so any weapons that may be obtaining is in advancement of that effort. >> host: tyler, texas, chuck, republican you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask your guest about the center for national policy and what kind of impact groups like that have on the policy of the united states government? >> guest: the center for

national policy is a think tank that looks at a lot of the international and stratfwik issues that are happening both on the national security front and foreign affairs front. i think a lot of the think tanks they do a variety of things. they hold events which discussions are held. they speak out and write papers. i think their role in the policy making is to offer somewhat unbiased views of foreign policy on international issues. >> host: to cyber security, the topic for the segment here, house debates coming up this week which you can watch on c-span. speak to us more about the civil liberties concerns and how the debate will play out on the floor this week? >> guest: i think what will likely happen there will be a democratic amendment that takes the position of adding more privacy and civil liberties protections to the bill. the bill being offered. >> host: what kinds do you think? >> guest: in particular one of the things people have talked about rather than sharing information directly with the intelligence

agencies, sending it to the department of homeland security as civilian agency. that is big debate that is going on. one bill that didn't make it to the floor this week. that bill offered by representative lundgren of the house homeland security committee that would deal with homeland security as lead for cybersecurity. somewhat of a voluntary standards process for critical structure protection. that bill didn't make it. there is lot of controversy over whether or not you want a regulatory scheme and whether dhs should have a leading role and i think that will play out in the amendment process. >> host: what is the white house's view on everything right now cybersecuritiwise? >> guest: the white house was rather supportive lundgren approach that didn't maybe it to the floor. it raised concerns with the sispa bill that will be on the floor partially with the privacy and civil liberties concerns and lack of a sufficient role for dhs in the bill. there is role for dhs in the bill but it is intelligence bill and looking more on the intelligence side of things. there is some concern that may affect the bill moving,

that there is something lacking. >> host: our guest is jessica herrera-flanigan former staff director and house homeland security committee. the years 2005 and 2008. she is fellow at center for national policy we have a call from dave. it is from bradenton, florida, independent caller. hi, dave. >> caller: how are you doing today? >> host: doing fine. >> caller: listen, my question may be off a little bit topic that you guys are talking about but, you know, homeland security to me is not afghanistan and, and you know, iraq. the homeland security should be more worried about mexico and things that are happening on the, you know, american continents instead of what is going on over

there and, you know, the, you know, the middle east and, in the, you know, the over there in the far east. >> host: i think we got the point. >> caller: i think --. >> host: go ahead and finish up, dave? >> caller: pardon me? >> host: go ahead and finish up. >> caller: we ought to worry more about what is happening in mexico and what is on the other side of our borders. >> host: i think he is repeating his point. we'll go on to joe in portsmouth, rhode island, a democrat. good morning. joe, are you there? one more time for joe, portsmouth, rhode island. how about sandy, pittsburgh? >> caller: yes. i have a question about cybersecurity and employment. i have a son who just graduated from college. he is $35,000 in debt.

very computer oriented. what opportunities can cybersecurity give to young people coming out of college? where can they go to apply for jobs? and what kind of jobs are there? where can they go to apply and give the young people some inroads to how can they get a job in this field, cybersecurity and where do they go? >> host: thanks for calling. >> cybersecurity is actually one of the biggest job creators right now and will continue to be as people look at ways to take new innovative technologies and apply cybersecurity to those technologies. the federal government has on about looking to higher a -- hire a number of cybersecurity experts. the mike mechanical bill talks about workforce development and trying to get more sigher security experts on board. in addition to the federal government there are a number of defense contractors and i.t. companies looking for cybersecurity experts. >> host: broaden this cybersecurity topic out a

little bit because it is quite broad. you mentioned what is going on in the house this week but when we talk about cybersecurity we're talking about a lot of other entities here. can you give us full scope? >> we're focusing right now on the critical infrastructure of this. element that will affect americans on day-to-day basis data security and data breach. what happens when your information is stolen. all of us -- if you do any shopping online you received a e-mail that your information may have been compromised. a lot of companies affected by various hacking groups and stealing information. not hacking groups. individuals doing the same. >> host: we have a call from north plains, new york, john, democrat. good morning, john. >> caller: good morning. good morning miss flanigan. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i have a question for high-level security information especially for governmental institutions.

exchange of security information has been in use i would, venture to aat least since the '80s. definitely since the '90s and of course in the 2000s and so on. my question may be more of a comment is a little askew. always puzzled me why donald rumsfeld came out during 911 we did not have the tv on. as if he didn't have access to secure information. it is the pentagon. it is department of defense. they don't make sneakers. always puzzled me why he said that we didn't have the tv on. that's why we weren't prepared for that third or fourth plane. i know cybersecurity didn't affect that i know it was. based on my comment or explain why he may have said that. thank you? >> guest: i'm not familiar with that comment. unfortunately i don't think i can come meant on that. >> host: we have to move this over to the senate. there is lot of house action this week but a headline on the hill this morning. house gears up what they're calling cybersecurity week but the security bill's fate rests with the senate. take us to the other side.

what is percolating in this area? >> guest: we had a bill hanging around since last year and even before the last congress. main bill in the senate being considered is the lieberman-collins bill that take as more comprehensive approach to sigher security rather than having three or four small bills there is one big bill. it does a lot of things we talked about. it does have an information-sharing section. not quite the same as the sispa one. more importantly has a section looks like lundgren bill of critical infrastructure voluntary standards section that would allow the federal government help critical instruction instruction through voluntary standards reach some type of agreement how to protect systems and that's what has been controversial and held up the bill, it was originally going to be considered in january and february. they have been trying to resolve that. there has been some, even though a bipartisan bill there has been some republican push brac. -- pushback.

senator mccain offered alternative that took out the section and mine other other things. they have been in discussions to resolve that issue and they haven't yet. >> host: here is another piece from senator lieberman. this is during one of our communicators programs which runs on the weekend and mondays on the net work. talk about the cybersecurity legislation he and senator snowe are putting forth. >> the goal simply stated to to protect all americans have in cyberspace from being stolen and from being attacked. and the theft is going on thousands of times every day, most of which people are not aware of. that is to say, people from, some from inside. mostly from outside the country actually going into the internet systems, computer systems of companies and stealing industrial, intellectual property and then taking it and i woulding the stuff that american companies spend millions or billions of dollars to develop.

which also takes a lot of jobs from america. the other thing, the aim of the legislation is to protect all the cyber structure in america that's privately owned from becoming targets of an enemy wanting to attack us. what am i talking about? the electric power grid. the transportation systems. the financial systems. so, this is all very vulnerable now and probably, if there was a major conflict an enemy would come at us first by cyberattack and we're simply not adequately defended. >> host: so to our guest a little bit more from "the hill." a democratic aide says the lieberman-collins bill is priority for senate majority leader reid. they expect to take up the legislation in a few weeks but unclear if they have enough votes. how do at the get past john mccain's concerns and of the bill?

>> guest: there is some interest in the house this week. if the house puts forward a collective group of bills and sends it over to the senate that will increase pressure on the senate. general thinking is first or second week of may they will try to move a bill forward on the floor, regardless where the support may be. leave it open amendment process and see whatments come up. if there are amendments come up you may see things like data breach, the supply chain, some intellectual property issues. >> host: they point out in the hill the powerful chamber of commerce is lobbying against lieberman-collins. where is the white house on the senate bill? >> guest: the white house is supportive of the lieberma lieberman-collins bill. addresses some of their concerns. critical infrastructure standards provisioning and that is one of their interests and something the white house thinks is necessity point. >> host: gainesville, florida, jeff, republican. >> caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i was wondering about homeland security in the, when it was established and

how many employees does it have? and what do they do? since 2006 i believe i read the government has a million more employees and what do they do? i mean why is there a need for it when we have the fbi, we have national guard? what's the need for it? i understand the need for protecting the internet and, you know, government and everything but, what's the needed need for all these employees and what are they doing? >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: i can tell you the one million jobs created not all of them are at the department of homeland security. the department of homeland security was created after 9/11. came into existence in early 2003. there are various components of it. a lot of components came from other places trying to put together in one location an effort to counter what happened on 9/11 to ensure that we have the protection, prevent, and recovery

mechanisms all in one place. among the entities that went to the department of homeland security were customs and border protection. so protecting the border. immigration and customs enforcement. that's dealing with undocumented workers and illegal immigration. the cybersecurity efforts. larger critical infrastructure protection. so protecting buildings. the secret service, the coast guard, fema. recovering from emergency situations, whether they be created by terrorist acts or natural disasters. and also, tsa. so aviation security. those are the major components. there are other pieces of it. they're all in one place so we can take a uniform, all habits approach to homeland security. >> host: you mentioned the internet grid. one viewer by twitter said there is no one incentive for any one private company to upgrade the grid so none do. >> guest: that is one of the criticisms levied by the white house. saying we don't want to get into regulatory scheme which is concern many republicans

have but we need to have some kind of voluntary process in place so entities can try to upgrade their systems. for smart grid there is actually some requirements in law there be some cybersecurity provisions though it is not clear what those may be. this is a way to try to move the ball forward and do things. it is a fine line to try to draw what you do and how do you become regulatory and some of the concerns raised by companies do if we do put standards into place will it become overburdensome and not allow us to keep being innovative? there is that struggle going on how we look at issue. >> host: there is democrat on the line. chelsea, michigan. >> caller: how are you doing? >> host: good. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my concern is homeland security and this is overdrawn, overrated, another police agency. we have enough security i think. i mean, i think we should be pushing for more teeth

instead of more police. we're highest prison population in the world. we have more children in prison than any other people in the world. when do we have enough is enough? >> guest: i think one of the things to remember about the homeland security department is an important part of its mission is prevention. so it to avoid the next 9/11 attack. when such an attack does occur how do we recover from it in an effective manner? part of its mission is on the protection side with some of its components like the secret service and customs and border protection but some is about prevention and recovery from several things. >> host: florida, vicki, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling because yesterday i watched c-span's coverage of the los angeles book festival and there was a lady on who talked about her book called, i know who you are and i saw what you did. her last name is andrews. and she made a comment about

homeland security possibly making efforts at some point where they feel threatened to slow down the internet so that people can not access as quickly or get on as fast and i wonder if the lady could come on that. >> guest: i have not heard from that happening. there are, there has been some discussion what happens in an emergency how do we assure ability to get on the internet or pet on telecommunications systems are made in such a way first-responders have priority but that's been a discussion. i have not heard that the department actually tried to slow down the network to keep people from getting on. if anything the u.s. has taken the position internet liberty and freedoms is important. they have fought against other nations and spoken out when other nations especially during the arab spring uprising last year have tried to slow down or keep their citizens from speaking out and getting on networks. >> host: tucson, arizona, rick, independent, good morning. >> caller:. yes, good morning. i would like to get the

views of your guest with regard to civil liberties and privacy. i think it applies to the dual hatting of the director of nsa. that is also the commander of cybercom, colocation of cybercom within nsa. also the fact that that staff is predominantly intelligence officers. how do you make that separation given that they now have access, particularly at the moment, the military some private sector information that is circumventing the laws associated with intelligence communities? >> host: let's hear from jessica herrera-flanigan. >> guest: part of the cybersecurity mission, part of it is with the homeland security and working with domestic issues and the private sector. there is another important part of that what are our nations overseas doing? cyber threats, the nsa and the military has an important role to play and, important not to forget that. some of our cyber threats

are coming from foreign nations. we know for example, that some of the worst offenders in terms of stealing information from both our government systems and private systems are coming from nations like china and russia. so we need to have a role for the nsa, for the intelligence community and for the department of defense to counter such efforts and learn what our opponents may be doing. also to counter whatever cyber-terrorists might be doing. those are not necessarily nations but rogue groups or terrorist organizations. there is an important role to play there. the question where do those lines get drawn and where do we then allow for the domestic side, the department of homeland security, commerce department or ftc to take a role? >> host: lots of mentions about homeland security. give us a broad sense of resources devoted to this area of cybersecurity in this government. >> guest: this government? >> host: yeah. >> guest: the department of homeland security has a cybersecurity section. it has assistant secretary of cybersecurity and looks at cybersecurity and national communications

issues. that is the nppd, national protection, i'm sorry, the national profession and division. that is run by a gentleman named rand bearse. look at efforts against chemical facilities assuring there are fences around and other security measures and also the cyber side of things. so that's one area. that group at the department of hem land security actually works very closely with the private sector as well as as with the department of defense. department of defense and nsa you have as a last questioner asked, there is a section there looking at issues the. with the department of justice you have the cybercrime division that looks at the criminal side of things. various other agencies have divisions that look at cybersecurity from their perspective. >> host: who are the experts in congress on this topic? >> guest: right now you have a few experts. on intelligence mike rogers and ruppersberger have taken a lead on what the nsa is doing. in the homeland security

side you have several. lieberman-collins we mentioned earlier. house side, dan lundgren we mentioned. dan clark the ranking member of house security subcommittee and house homeland. you also have peter king and bennie thompson ranking members of the house homeland security full committee. there is house cybersecurity caucus where you have mike mccaul who we mentioned earlier. and one other person who has been very active on the house side has been mack thornberry, a congressman from texas was in charge of cybersecurity task force and has been engaged on these issues since the beginning. house homeland security committee back in 2002. >> host: give us a sense how big this issue will get in the years to come. >> guest: given every single one ever us has a smartphone, internet connected television, using computer technologies to run our every-day lives. you have all the critical infrastructures that the banking the financial industries, electric grids we talked about earlier, the

telecom industries all relying on cyber and internet to deliver their services it will be huge. >> host: fort wayne, indiana, wayne, calling democrat. good morning. >> caller: yes. what i'd like to know is, all those homeland security is ostensibly to protect us from threats outside. most of the actions taken are against american citizens. it's like the sipa, where they get to spy on american citizens rather than actually find the terrorists from outside. >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: i think what you -- the department of homeland security is actually looking across the board. it is not spying on individuals per se. it's looking for the terrorists. unfortunately we don't know what the terrorists look like. so we have to take very cautionary comprehensive approach to looking for those who are wishing us ill within our borders and

without. >> host: we have lonni, florence, alabama, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: yeah i would like to know what it is going to cost and how much you make in a year? >> host: tell us about the cost. we talk about the scope of the cybersecurity effort. how much money is being spent? do you have a sense. >> guest: i think a billion dollars is being spent. some of it is on the intelligence side so we don't know the exact numbers. estimates have said cybersecurity spend is spending is in the billions of dollars to protect all of our systems to protect new technologies. one things we have to remember, innovation changes and technology changes we have to change how we protect those systems. that is up who it may cost us. but if we don't do anything on cybersecurity the cost can range to billions to trillions of dollars. it is a problem has to be addressed. if we don't address it, think about how much it will cost to deal with identity theft and billions of dollars being spent to try

to prevent that. a lots of important assets, or, that is an important aspect that we have to look at. look at the cost. >> host: what are companies, say the biggest companies doing in this area right now? >> guest: a lot of the biggest companies have cybersecurity experts on board. they have to protect their own networks. companies that have personally identifiable information. so any company that stores information on you, me or anyone else they have units that are just looking at fraud and abuse. more and more companies are going to have to be engaged because of the theft of the intellectual property especially as we see foreign nations certain foreign nations would like to decide to steal our intellectual property and ideas. almost every company is trying to engage how they protect the assets and protect the information of their customers. >> host: explain the intersection between the corporate world and the government with this area of cybersecurity. >> guest: one of the ways right now which have with the department of homeland security with regards to the critical structures. that is where we focus the government's efforts so far.

and that's with the banking industry, the telecom industries. there are information-sharing mechanisms in place. we created, isags, information sharing advisory groups. company within the banking sector talk to each other and talk about the threatsing happen and share the information to try to protect themselves. >> host: our guest is graduate of yale and harvard. jessica herrera,-flanagan former staff director and general counsel to the homeland security committee 2005 to 2008. currently a fellow at center for national policy. center for national policy. new jersey, depak, democrat, thank you for waiting. >> caller: yes. i'm wondering if congress is doing something to legalize the -- software testing. i have seen a lot of perhaps

foreign nationals in india, get jobs and submitting a fake resume'. they are giving interviews on their behalf and getting commissions and getting paid 50, $60 an hour just by having a small degree and somebody taking a --. congress is doing something to legalize software testing training or any training so americans can get jobs here? >> guest: so there are a number of efforts going on to try to increase domestically the education efforts like s.t.e.m. efforts, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, so people here, students basically in college, can learn and try to focus on those efforts to increase our workforce on the science and technology side including software side. there are also efforts on the high-skilled immigration side of things both to assure we have number of workers so that here that we need. so people who are educated here, come from foreign

countries so we just don't educate them and send them away to compete against us. we're looking for ways to improve that. we're underway to assure fraud is not occurring there is lot of discussion about fraud within certain immigration groups and companies and how to address that. so i think congress sick at thatting those issues very seriously. they're not moving very quickly on legislation but looking at ways to address that legislation. >> host: here is question by twitter. does a bill make distinction between cyberattack and cyber activism. >> guest: they do not. a lot of protecting network. less focused on attack and more focused on process more broadly. >> host: russell from texas. independent. >> caller: hi, there. >> host: is this russell? >> caller: no, this is bonnie cameron. >> host: we're glad to have you, go ahead you. >> caller: yes.

i want to make a comment on homeland security. i think they are spending too much money on that because they are infringing on us, the united states citizens. they came to my house, telling me that my husband couldn't write a letter to the president on the way he felt of what he was doing with his job. and refused to give us i.d. showed us his gun. i think that was very wrong. and nobody would listen to us about what they were doing. now, i don't think that's right for homeland security. >> host: thanks for calling. something you want to respond to? >> guest: unfortunately i'm not familiar with the circumstances. i don't think i could respond to that. >> host: phoenix, peg, democrat. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: read in sunday's paper that some german scientists had just come up

with, out with new research that he had they had done which basically was about being able to, to hack-proof any internet connections and it was a very technical article about something about lining up atoms or splitting them and that if any third party came in somehow that communication would be nonexistent. do you know anything about these german researchers and this new attempt to secure cyberspace? >> host: thanks, caller. >> guest: i read a little bit about that. i read about others who have tried similar things. unfortunately think only way to make something hack-proof is to disconnect it from the internet. computers are much like locks. there is always someone who can pick a lock.

there is not a lock that is pick-proof. there may be some that are close. also with internet and anti-hacking efforts out there but it's a constant game of trying to keep up with the automation that is going on. with assuring you're constantly looking at network to see who is trying to get in, how to prevent them and when they get in how to get them out. >> host: back to the house, the senate night have its bill next couple weeks. what kind of time table is there to put pieces together on this? >> guest: would have be pretty quickly. congress will be very busy coming this summer and busy with the election. if the house does its effort this week and senate is able to do its effort in may i think you will see quick movement the question, will senate get off the effort it has so far and go forward. >> host: there is a passage in a cq piece, that congressman thornberry of texas saying added bills could come to the house floor. this week's slate of legislation is only the start.

can you give us a preview what else might be coming? >> guest: there is still discussions whether the lundgren bill was scaled down in committee. the infrastructure language was removed. there is question whether that bill will move forward. there are other bills in the hopper include a potential data breach bill that would deal with preemption breach so you don't have 50 states putting out different laws about data breach and how you're supposed to be notified if someone steals your information. there is energy grid bill in the energy and commerce committee that may come out and cyber commissions do we have strong enough laws to go after bad guys when they commit acts in the u.s.. >> host: last couple calls. kelly, independent. welcome. >> caller: this is tony from chapel hill. >> host: oh, go ahead, tony. >> caller: okay, thank you. look, i have two real concerns. for one thing initially when they started homeland

security i don't know if that brings back not to reference to anyone but they need to think about this. and also, when they retroactively allow at&t or any other communications company to, that handles the internet to retroactively be innocent of the crimes that they have already committed, this is step by step a new ss or the new gestapo of america that will be happening in about 15 or 20 years. and she said there was going to be a lot of small bills but this would be one big bill. the reason it is one big bill is to confuse everybody and not bring the real issues out. and if you think that american newspapers and media are actually going to tell us anything at all, it is a dream. >> host: one caller's perspective there. any thoughts? >> guest: i will say that the liability protections that are in the bill are not retroactive. essentially what they have intended to do is the government shares information with a company

and the company acts on that information, cyber threat information and something goes awry that company has some protections because they listened to what the government said. that are the liability protections in the mike waters bill. that bill is 18 pages. make the bills, longest is four or five-pages long. >> host: is there somewhat easy to understand is that is the right word? >> guest: not easy to understand because some of the language is broad and that is where the privacy and civil liberties concerns come in. >> host: got it. last call, harrisburg, pennsylvania. david, democrat. good morning. >> caller: hi. i really enjoyed the previous show with brian williams q&a with douglas wising. i think that, we're wasting tremendous amounts of money in afghanistan and 2000 service people dying, tens of thousands injured.

the people, we've almost destroyed their water system that they need for irrigation and just being alive with this random, unsynchronized well-drilling. if we're going to stay there i hope we can improve their water system. when we say stay there, not combat troops. if we're going to continue to give them aid, give them aid they can use, not the global corporations can come in and --. >> host: caller, let me jump in. we're talking cybersecurity here. can you bring your comments over to that area if possible? >> caller: oh i'm sorry, i came in to comment on the afghan --. >> host: got it. we're on cybersecurity segment now. afghanistan was our earlier segment. we are, just about out of time. so wrap this up for us. final legislation what's your guess if that is the right word what this might be able to look like based on the factions that are out there? >> guest: i think you will see some type of

information-sharing between the federal government and private sector. whether that is intelligence-led or dhs-led that is still unclear. that is assuming house and senate will get together. you're seeing a lot of r&d efforts. workforce training. how do we develop a cybersecurity workforce that is controversial. there are some efforts to try to put all cybersecurity under one leadership whether white house or homeland security that is still being debated. critical infrastructure voluntary language that will be hard to see. >> host: jessica her rare a a,-flanigan thanks for your time and insight this morning. >> guest: thank you, paul. >> the senate is coming in to debate whether to go forward on the violence against women act. at 2:00 eastern senators are scheduled to discuss going ahead with the resolution on nation labor relations law rule on union elections. violence against wn